Trade Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

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

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, we now know for a fact that only a tiny fraction of those rolled-over trade agreements to which we are a party and will have ratified before exit day will be considered continuity agreements. The reality is that within a short period of time—a number of weeks, in fact—we will not be able to rely on the fact that our existing trade agreements will be considered as continuity agreements. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, is absolutely right that, for the vast majority of the agreements we enter into prior to exit day, there will have to be a degree of certainty as to the underpinning, replicating or agreement of standards after exit day.

In many respects, the only continuity agreements that will exist are those we will have ratified before exit day, which is a tiny fraction of those that exist. Everything else will be, in effect, a trade deal. The concern is that the Government may choose to use the regulatory framework in this Bill rather than the CRaG procedure in making treaties. It is absolutely right that in this Bill we should have a degree of legal underpinning of the standards to which we are now a party and which we wish to see continued after exit day.

In Committee there were a number of amendments from me, my colleagues on these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady McIntosh, and others. I am happy that this has coalesced around a cross-party amendment and I look forward to the Government’s response. On exit, we are looking to baseline the standards that already exist. It is necessary to maintain these standards in any of the agreements now that we are likely to carry forward—which can be permanent. Regulations made under this Bill would last for three years, but could be extended for a further three years and then a further three years. The lifetime of the regulations could become very long indeed.

As much as the Government say there is no difference in them as they are simply continuity and will not include any of the contents, that is merely a statement of policy. As we just heard on tariff policy, we know what schedules have been submitted to Geneva. However, we now know that if there is a likelihood of no deal, potentially there will be a revision to the schedules put forward by the Government. We cannot rely simply on the policy of the Government: we must rely on the legislation being clear.

We already know through the EU Select Committee of this House that there are some differences in the agreements that have already been signed beyond legal terminology. We know that interpretation of text can sometimes be as important as the text itself when it comes to trading relationships. That is why I have lodged Motions to debate each of the three deals that have so far been agreed, so that the Chamber has an opportunity to look at them. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others will, I am sure, want to take part in a debate on the Faroe Islands agreement and others. I have had to lodge the Motions to debate those agreements because the Government did not intend to do so. The EU Select Committee report said it was “bizarre” that the Government chose not to bring those agreements at least for consideration in the Chamber. However, they will be debated because I have ensured that. The Minister, who has expressed openness and transparency all along, was seemingly content for there to be no debate on those agreements—the only ones that we are likely to have, with the addition of Switzerland in the next week or so. That is regrettable.

With regard to the amendment, the Minister may say that she has difficulty with the words “reducing”, “standards” and, in particular, “animal … welfare”. Proposed new paragraphs (a) to (g) are reasonable areas in which we have current regulatory standards as a baseline that we wish to protect. The Government should have no problem in accepting proposed new paragraph (f) on labour rights. The Prime Minister seems to have accepted it as regards guaranteeing employment and labour rights, and I would be surprised—putting it lightly—if, the day after the Government said a “lock” would be put in place to guarantee the future of these standards, they opposed an amendment that secured those standards’ continuity.

If the Minister says that she is concerned about the word “reducing”, she need not be. We have well-established systems of oversight through the courts to consider whether the current regulatory regime for standards is being upheld. The Government seem content with their approach on migrating such existing laws into domestic law so it should not pose problems for civil society groups or any interested parties to consider whether or not standards are being reduced. In the amendment, we are stating that they should be upheld in the implementation of any new agreements by virtue of the continuity agreements being new treaties. That is reasonable.

The Minister should also be content with the use of the word “standards”, as this is commonplace. Indeed, that is clear in, for example, the Air Quality Standards (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which this Government brought forward and Parliament passed. None of those areas should pose them any difficulties.

The Government also seem to have been opaque in recent days about animal health, hygiene and welfare—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig—and whether it is necessary to continue these approaches when we engage in trade agreements. In many respects, this is the litmus test for how the Government will approach the discussions. The Secretary of State’s rather glib comparison on television at the weekend between the process of surface-washing salads with chlorine prior to packaging and its use as a decontaminant in the United States as a replacement for good hygiene practice at farm level and in slaughterhouses, thereby directly masking poorer hygienic practices, was utterly misleading. He should not have said that. The EU, with full UK support, has made it clear that good hygiene practice is a prerequisite to the application of hazard-based controls, and that these are an essential element in any discussion on market access for such animal products.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the distinction between whether chlorine washing is bad for our health or masks the different treatment of animals during their lives. Is he saying that chlorine washing is not bad for our health, whether it is used on fruit from the EU or animals from the US? He and others have been using the issue as a scare to make us think that our health would be put at risk by having things rendered salmonella-free by this kind of treatment, whether by the EU or the US.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

It is a shame that processes do not allow interventions on interventions. When have I said that this is a health risk? When has the noble Lord heard me say that? He intervened on me and said “he”, as in “me”.

[Lord Lilley]

I apologise and withdraw in that case.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am grateful for that. The point I am making is that the EU, with full UK support, has had a consistent position on the use of chlorine on chickens—that it should not be used to mask the lack of hygiene on farms and in slaughterhouses. The separate issue of the effect of its use on public health is, and always has been, a moot point which the European Union has always recognised, and that is why it has consistently commissioned a number of reports. The final conclusion from those reports, which the EU and the UK have relied upon, has come from the World Health Organization, which has said that, as far as the use of chlorine in agriculture is concerned, the current position is the one to be maintained, because the primacy is that the United States, as a policy, uses it to mask poor hygiene practices in farms and slaughterhouses. When it comes to trade and the trading of goods, that is the critical aspect, and that would be reflected in a trade agreement.