Trade Bill

Lord Sheikh Excerpts

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

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his appointment and excellent maiden speech. He brings a breadth of experience and expertise to your Lordships’ House.

I support this Bill, which, while being fundamentally about continuity, is also about redefining and strengthening our trading relationships across the world. Today, I am particularly interested in what this means for the emerging and frontier markets that are among our growing trading partners.

I have been actively involved in promoting trade and investment with other countries and have volunteered to deliver keynote speeches at multiple high-level conferences organised by DMA Invest in London, including with the Governments of Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Papua New Guinea.

I have witnessed an appetite to do business with the United Kingdom on the part of overseas countries. Following my visit to Tajikistan last year, where I was a guest of our ambassador, we have begun organising the first Tajikistan summit for next year. We have a series of engagements with the Government of Nepal beginning with a great conference this month, and I would be pleased if my noble friend the Minister would accept my invitation to speak at it. We are also in discussion with two other embassies about the possibility of future events.

Over the past few years, the importance of economic co-operation and bilateral relations has become more prevalent. The UK is a leader in development and a powerhouse of trade and diplomacy. We have 280 overseas missions, including embassies and high commissions. On my visits overseas, I have seen how the DIT is increasingly geared to actively promote trade and deliver excellent training of people’s business skills.

Following the recent merger of DfID and the FCO, this Bill enables us to streamline our global strategy further, focusing in particular on how we can tackle the climate crisis, inequality and the pandemic collectively. This Bill will reflect our commitment to fair trade and improving access to markets for developing countries. We need to ensure that we have the correct tariffs to support the import of added-value products successfully and fairly.

In making it easier to do business, we cannot ignore our environmental commitments. We must promote green energy, the development of green technology and green skills. That is how we can inspire environmental incentives not just to maintain standards, but to improve them, and accelerate our environmentally friendly business activities in the UK and abroad. We have a great deal of knowledge and expertise on Islamic finance, and we must actively promote the industry overseas, which would result in mutual benefits. In this regard, I declare that I co-chair the APPG on Islamic finance.

In conclusion, the Trade Bill is about opportunity—the opportunity to achieve inclusive growth by building deeper partnerships with emerging markets, to strengthen our involvement internationally and to commit meaningfully to sustainability.

Trade Bill

Lord Sheikh Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Grand Committee

The noble Viscount will be familiar with the force of cross-party amendments. He will, I am sure, be familiar too with speeches written for Ministers in these circumstances which state that amendments are flawed or not appropriate for a Bill. If he has passages like that in his speech, he has time enough now to cross them out, because he knows that he will need to answer the substance of what we are saying here. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 40. As we deepen and strengthen our global trading relations, we cannot ignore our environmental commitments. I support this amendment because it means that our environmental obligations, as outlined by international law, cannot be undermined by future trade deals.

This must be a green Brexit. The Government’s election manifesto stated that they will not compromise on our high environmental protections in any future trade deals. Without this amendment, these are promises without actions. The international agreements laid out in this amendment are about not just environmental protection but our health and well-being, and are for the benefit of generations to come.

In the interests of time, I will outline only three of these international agreements. First, the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution has helped reduce pollution levels across borders and improve human health. As we have seen during lockdowns, the rapid decline in air pollution has had a positive impact on the health and well-being of people and nature in the UK and internationally. By honouring our commitment to this convention in this amendment, we can continue to protect the health of people and ensure that we do not undermine the improvements made as we recover from the pandemic and restart the economy.

Secondly, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is included in this amendment. It is about not just maritime jurisdiction but managing resources in a sustainable manner. The issue of fish stocks in UK fishing waters has been a prominent debate in Brexit. By continuing our commitment to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, we can ensure that the quality and productiveness of our fish stocks are maintained. It is essential for both our biodiversity and the long-term livelihood of our fishermen.

Thirdly, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a key mechanism for monitoring greenhouse gas contributions and plays an important role in reducing emissions in the fight against the climate crisis. Global trade has an environmental footprint. For instance, 30% of carbon dioxide emissions are from freight transport. As we develop trading relations, we must ensure that we stay on the path to net zero emissions by 2050. This amendment means that we will continue to protect the environment in a way that does not restrict trade. It is an opportunity to make trade more sustainable by supporting investment in greener sectors and turning away from polluting industries to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

This amendment would also ensure that, within 12 months of making regulations or ratifying a trade agreement, a report assessing the impact of regulations on our environmental obligations is presented to Parliament. This is key in ensuring that we are held accountable and have fully considered the implications of any deal. If the UK is to be a leader in sustainability, this amendment must be supported. Without it, we lack a meaningful commitment to tackling the climate crisis.

The Government assure us that they are putting green at the heart of the coronavirus recovery. The Prime Minister has said that he wants the UK to be seen as a leading example in enabling a global green industrial revolution. Supporting this amendment would enable us to be an effective environmental leader, especially as we prepare to host COP 26 next year.

[Lord Beith (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already referred to the Henry VIII powers and questioned why they are repeated in this Bill when, to a large extent, they are available in the withdrawal Act. Amendment 22, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, gives us an opportunity to look at one part of that. It would delete the Henry VIII power contained on page 2, in paragraph (a) in line 27. That is a power to modify

“retained direct principal EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law”.

That sounds rather obscure, but it is an opportunity to change significant standards, using Henry VIII powers to modify substantive primary legislation by means of statutory instruments. We all know what problems these powers present, as they are very topical at the moment. The powers can be exercised by UK Ministers or by Ministers in devolved Administrations, described as “appropriate authorities” in the clause. They put Ministers in the position that they probably have to worry a little less about what Parliament will think or do about what they are negotiating.

The Explanatory Notes say that this provision

“does not allow for regulations to make or extend criminal offences, charge fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law, or create new public bodies.”

The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, raised this issue in the context of the previous Trade Bill, and pointed out:

“We are not persuaded by the Government’s position that it is sufficient for the power in clause 2 to be constrained presumptively rather than explicitly. We recommend that the restrictions on the power be included in the text of the Bill.”


That is a perfectly reasonable request by the committee.

There is a context to it, or a context to our consideration of it. We have just been through a series of parliamentary rows and debates about the use of powers under the public health Act of 1984. I say the use—it was the fairly incompetent use of them, because every prosecution that relied on that legislation and orders made under it failed. Convictions were overturned because of confusion about the regulation-making power that the Act provided, and confusion about whether the individuals to which the provisions were applied could reasonably be expected to be infected or simply be put under these provisions for their own benefit, for which the legislation did not provide.

Continuity trade deals post Brexit are not the same as a pandemic, but they are surrounded by issues of urgency and claims of exceptional circumstances. It is in such contexts that powers of delegated legislation get abused or overused. When that happens, we ask why Parliament created such wide powers and why we allowed it in the first place. The answer usually is that it was by ignoring what the Delegated Powers Committee, the Statutory Instruments Committee or the Constitution Committee said at the time and relying on the fact that Governments will always do the right thing, won’t they? Well, Governments will not always do the right thing, sometimes for profoundly objectionable reasons and sometimes because they think that the need to get on with things overrides any of these considerations. There is a case for making the legislation clear on the limits on the use of power to repeal or modify existing primary legislation and that provision ought to be in the Bill. There is still time to put this right at Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn, so I call again the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise because I did not unmute myself, but I think that Lady Sheikh has managed to unmute me.

I support Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. While the internet is a space for innovation, expression and communication, it can also be damaging. As our digital world develops and innovates, so do the risks of online harm. Children are increasingly exposed to inappropriate content, grooming, harassment, malicious behaviour, misinformation and breaches of privacy. Two-thirds of vulnerable children and young people, supported by Barnardo’s sexual exploitation service, were groomed online before meeting their abuser in person.

Social media companies have failed to prioritise children’s safety. Last year, the NSPCC found that more than 70% of reported grooming took place on the main social media networks—Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Snapchat. The global platforms are not taking enough responsibility for content on their sites, or being held accountable. More needs to be done to verify user identities, monitor harmful content and handle reports of abuse effectively. Harmful content and activities have a damaging effect on children’s mental and physical well-being and can lead to exploitation, trafficking, substance abuse and radicalisation. Those impacts are rarely short term; they stay with the children for the rest of their lives.

The UK is committed to being the safest place in the world to be online, and we must do more. We need better safeguards, and I urge the Government to prioritise the online harms Bill, which will be world leading in safety requirements and holding the industry accountable. As we leave the European Union and continue to develop our place in the digital world, we must ensure that our standards and goals are not jeopardised. We recently signed a trade deal with Japan; this historic agreement will advance digital standards through data provisions that maintain and improve digital safety. This year, Japan was ranked first in the child online safety index for low cyber risks. Those risks refer to bullying, misuse of technology, the detrimental effect of gaming and social media, and exposure to violent and sexual content.

In the UK-Japan trade deal, the rights and protection of children online have not been undermined, as Japan shares a similar ambition to ours for legislative standards. But what will happen when we look to sign with other countries that do not have the same level of protection? Unlike Japan, the United States came 22nd out of 30 countries in the child online safety index for cyber risks.

Although this is only one aspect of the index, it shows that children are particularly at risk online in the United States. We cannot expose our children to the same abuse. The new trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada has created a legal shield for tech companies, whereby the service providers are not held liable for content on their platforms or the harm it may cause to users. This fails to hold social media companies to account, and is not an effective safeguard for children.

Supporting the amendment would mean that our existing protections could not be traded away, and would ensure that we could fulfil our duty of care to children. If we do not support the amendment, we risk undermining our commitment to create a safer world online for the protection of children. Furthermore, if we do not do this, we could cause a situation in which social media giants are not transparent in how they deal with abuse online, and may be less accountable.

The pandemic has reinforced the importance of the digital world in our lives. When we return to normality, we must have better safeguards. We should not just maintain our existing safeguards; we should endeavour to strengthen them. The amendment would mean at least that our existing laws, and therefore the rights of our children, were protected. I hope that it will be accepted.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in responding to the last group of amendments, the Minster, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, expressed surprise at the broad nature of the debate. I would say to him, perhaps facetiously, “Welcome to the House of Lords”. I fear that this group may tempt his colleague, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to make a similar observation, but I ask that he does not. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said at the end of the previous debate, the nature of these debates highlights serious concerns that noble Lords have, and the Government should take them seriously, even when they are not necessarily on the face of the Bill.

This is a very good example of that. I shall not speak in detail about Amendment 34, because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a very powerful speech. I am also glad that Lady Sheikh managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, online, because he made a very strident contribution on something that is extremely important.

Similarly, I am not going to talk much about intellectual property. On this issue I bend the knee to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—and, frankly, so should Her Majesty’s Government. I suggest that the Minister should give my noble friend’s words, and particularly his questions, special attention, because they are serious and important issues that face a lot of companies in this country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke strongly on data flow. At the risk of provoking the ire of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I have to say that I agree with her. Her issue is absolutely fundamental—and I shall expand a bit on that.

I have previously quoted the “exuberant” Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, describes her. Here is another quote, from a speech she made to the WTO almost exactly a year ago:

“We believe it is high time to reform digital trade rules so that they are fit for the 21st century, reducing restrictions to market access to support e-commerce and ensure the free flow of data across borders.”


Yet despite this enthusiasm or exuberance, I sense that there are problems when it comes to squaring the conflicting pressures that are mounting around the free flow of data across borders. Indeed, when the Minister kindly invited myself and others to a facilitated discussion on the progress of the US-UK trade deal, I was surprised and shocked by the insouciant response to my question on data adequacy and the issue of reconciling US and EU data rules. It was a very short answer, and to us, it did not show a full understanding of the challenge.

However, it is not just about GDPR. I will talk in a little detail about Schrems II, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised, because it is an important cloud hanging over what we seek to achieve. To remind your Lordships, in that ruling the European Court of Justice, the highest court of the EU, found on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US data protection shield. To explain, it wrote in its press release that

“the requirements of US national security, public interest and law enforcement have primacy, thus condoning interference with the fundamental rights of persons whose data are transferred to that third country.”

It added that

“mechanisms in the EU-US Privacy Shield ostensibly intended to mitigate this interference are not up the required legal standard of ‘essential equivalence’ with EU law.”

Broadly, the US’s prioritization of digital surveillance in the view of the court collides directly with European fundamental rights.

That is a sobering ruling, which spells danger for UK trade aspirations and sets some alarm bells ringing regarding the UK’s surveillance regime. Her Majesty’s Government need to reflect on this very seriously when talking up the potential for a UK-US trade deal that includes data, and they should contrast that stark ruling with the freebooting statement from the Secretary of State with which I opened. By the way, I assume that Her Majesty’s Government are probably having to reflect on this ruling in their efforts to tie down data adequacy with the EU when the transition period runs out. Perhaps the Minister can use this opportunity to update us on progress with these discussions with the EU.

This is not a trivial issue, and we need to demonstrate in this country that we take it seriously. As a starting point, accepting Amendments 15, 16 and 34 would be a very good idea.

Trade Bill

Lord Sheikh Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have great sympathy for the thinking that lies behind these amendments, and I have huge admiration for the unremitting way that my noble friend Lord Alton carries on his campaign to root out genocide and to bring its perpetrators to justice wherever they can be found. It is a hard struggle. The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide now seems, with hindsight, to be a deplorably weak instrument for dealing with the challenges we face today. It was indeed the first such treaty of the modern era, as my noble friend Lady Falkner pointed out, but it is simply not up to the job.

It was conceived in the mid-1940s as a reaction against the Holocaust that the Nazis’ policy of extermination had created in Europe. It was assumed that it would be enough to require the contracting parties to enact the necessary legislation and, having done so, to require them to bring those within their jurisdiction who were charged with genocide to trial. But we can now see, in today’s world, how ineffective and perhaps naive this relatively simple convention is.

The UN convention against torture of 1987, which we became familiar with in the case of Senator Pinochet, is a much more powerful instrument. He had travelled to this country for health reasons and, no doubt to his great surprise and dismay, found himself open to proceedings brought against him under that convention in Spain. This was because he had travelled to this country, which was one of the signatory countries that was bound by the convention to extradite him to be tried there. The Law Lords in this House, of whom I was one, upheld the Spanish prosecutor’s request, although in the end Senator Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. I mention this just to make the point that the torture convention is a much more far-reaching instrument, although even it would probably still fall short of what is needed to deal with the crime of genocide in the countries where it is now prevalent, which have been referred to this evening, simply because those countries would almost certainly refuse to release the perpetrators to a country where they could be brought to trial.

We have to make the best of what we have. We cannot go down the direct route of bringing the perpetrators to trial here, so some other route must be found. We cannot just turn our backs on this appalling crime, and we must be grateful to the noble Lord for doing his very best to see that we do not. The greatest barrier that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has faced has been in trying to devise a mechanism for bringing the issue before our courts. We have to do this here, because there is no standing international tribunal that has universal jurisdiction in this matter.

Our courts can deal only with those over whom it has jurisdiction according to our rules, and as a general rule it can deal only with crimes committed here in this country. Parliament may give our courts extraterritorial jurisdiction over offences committed abroad, but it must do so expressly, and the accused person must be in this country when and if he is to be tried here. We have had extraterritorial jurisdiction in the case of the murder of British nationals committed abroad, since 1861; and, more recently, in the case of the taking of hostages, since 1982; torture, since 1988; and terrorism, since 2000. But even if genocide had been on the list, without a strong UN convention that would enable us to get the people who really matter here to be tried it is almost impossible. So what else can be done?

The procedure which the noble Lord has chosen has my full support. Let me bring the bare bones that we see before us to life. There are two very important advantages, which I think are worth mentioning. First, you need to have someone with a relevant interest to bring a proceeding before the court; the person or group of persons referred to in these amendments will almost certainly satisfy that requirement. This in itself is a big step forward.

Secondly, what it provides will allow for due process in a hearing in full accordance with the rule of law. By this I mean that notice of the proceedings will be served on the Secretary of State and on a representative of the other signatory to the agreement, as they must both be given a right of reply. This is to enable the Secretary of State to appear and present such arguments as he or she thinks fit, and the other signatory, if it wishes, will have that opportunity, too. This is important, because the court will wish to test the argument in support of the application that is brought before it. There will be two questions before it: first, can the court be satisfied that the crime of genocide has been committed; and, secondly, should it grant the remedy to which the amendment refers?

I wish to stress that the procedure the noble Lord proposes is a very serious matter, not a mere formality. It will result, if it proceeds, in a fully reasoned judgment by one of our judges. That is its strength, as a finding by a judge in proceedings of this kind in the applicant’s favour will carry real weight, quite apart from the effect it will have on the relevant agreement. I think that it will achieve its object, but if a refinement in its wording is needed to be sure that it will do so, that refinement should certainly be made. I, too, very much hope that the Minister will support this amendment.

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is imperative that we support Amendment 68, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I commend him on his excellent speech; he did indeed speak from the heart.

At the outset, I would like to say that in 1972 my family and thousands of Asians were expelled from Uganda by General Amin. I have personal experience of ill treatment being imposed on innocent people by a tyrant. I have spoken previously about crimes against humanity in your Lordships’ House. I would like to declare that I am the co-chair of the APPG for the Prevention of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this amendment, which sends a clear message that the UK will not be associated in any way with regimes found by law to be committing genocide. The amendment would mean that regulations made under this Bill to authorise the implementation of trade agreements would be revoked if the High Court of England decides that they should be, on the grounds that a signatory to a relevant trade agreement has committed genocide.

The amendment would also grant the right to persons or groups of persons belonging to national, ethnic, racial or religious groups that have been subjected to genocide to oblige the UK courts to request that a trade agreement be revoked. It is right that the High Court decides, as the court will be impartial and decisions will be arrived at logically.

In 2017, the Conservative Party published the Kigali declaration affirming our commitment to prevent and punish genocide. The declaration states:

“Whether at home or abroad we will seek to protect individuals and groups who are targeted because of their identity, from hate crime to genocide to violent extremism. Our responsibility to protect begins at home but extends around the world.”


This requires us to ensure that any potential violation of human rights is considered before doing business with any country. If the United Kingdom maintains trade agreements with states committing genocide, we risk being seen as complicit in these crimes and we send a message that our trading partners may commit genocide without any consequence.

This amendment must be accepted, because the UK is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the 2005 Responsibility to Protect commitment. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court in 2001 incorporated the Rome statute into English law. These commitments mean that we have a legal and moral obligation to act against genocide.

I and other Members of your Lordships’ House spoke on Second Reading of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill about the treatment of Uighurs and Falun Gong in China. Evidence of the Uighur genocide is growing. The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders has estimated that 1 million Uighurs have been detained and organs are being harvested on a massive scale. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute report suggested that 80,000 Uighurs were transferred out of Xinjiang between 2017 and 2019, and they are likely working under forced labour conditions while supplying global brands.

The proposed amendment is modest. The United States has gone much further to condemn and punish those responsible for those human rights abuses. Earlier this year, Congress passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which places sanctions on officials responsible for oppression of Uighurs in Xinjiang. US companies with operations in Xinjiang have been compelled to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour.

Furthermore, US Customs and Border Protection has issued five withhold release orders barring imports from such producers of cotton, apples, hair products, computer parts and other goods in the Xinjiang region. The House of Representatives recently passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act with almost unanimous support from both main parties. If this law, which now has to go to the Senate, is passed, it will ensure that goods made with forced labour in the Xinjiang region will not enter the US market.

Through these Acts, the United States holds the Chinese Government accountable and ensures that Americans do not benefit from goods created by forced labour or under potential genocide. This amendment goes some way towards this, by giving UK courts the option to remove trade co-operation with states found to be perpetrating genocide, establishing a principle that may be taken further in future legislation.

Trade Bill

Lord Sheikh Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support both amendments in this grouping. Amendments 14 and 21 are important because they are about aligning our climate and environmental targets with our trade agreements. I spoke on these issues in Committee and reinforce the point that these amendments would enable us to be an effective environmental leader. I commend the Government for their increasing attention and leadership on environmental issues, which will not just protect our health but drive our economic growth. This has been shown in the recent spending review and 10-point plan.

These are positive amendments, which will help us to have a proper green industrial revolution. In the late 18th century, the Industrial Revolution began in the United Kingdom and by the 1830s, it had spread to Europe and the United States. I hope that the green industrial revolution can do the same and that the UK can become a true leader in green growth. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that this Government have done a huge amount to protect and improve the environment. I completely agree that they have done so. However, this should not mean that we sit on our laurels. Amendments 14 and 21 will help drive our green agenda forward.

Amendment 14 would mean that future trade agreements cannot be signed or approved if they are inconsistent with our climate change obligations. This includes being compliant with the Climate Change Act 2008, and our international obligation to tackle climate change under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

This amendment will help us reach these emissions targets by making sure that we have considered the impact of trade agreements on the climate. For example, subsection (4) states that a Minister would have to make a statement on any agreement

“confirming that the agreement will not give rise to a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.”

By doing so, we are sending a message that not only do we take emissions seriously but that we are helping to reduce our environmental impact. I welcome subsection (4)(b), which means that if a trade agreement leads to increased net emissions, detailed mitigation measures must be laid before Parliament. So, if we are at risk of emitting too much, we have the chance to put it right, not just for the benefit of our targets but for our own health and well-being. Given that the UK was one of the first major economies to set a net-zero goal, Amendment 14 means that we can properly commit to achieving this target and be a true leader in the run-up to our COP 26 presidency.

At the virtual Climate Ambition Summit 2020 last weekend, the United Nations Secretary-General asked nations to make their promise of a net-zero world a reality. During the summit, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s ambitious targets to cut emissions by at least 68% by 2030, and this is the first time we have put forward our national climate plan separately from the European Union. Furthermore, in its sixth carbon budget report, released last week, the Committee on Climate Change said we need early action and key policy building blocks to reach net zero by 2050. This Trade Bill gives us a chance to do that and to shape our own trade policy. Amendment 14 allows us to be explicit about where we stand on slowing down the rate of climate change and should be supported.

The risk to the environment from poor trade policies is significant, but trade can play an important role in reducing our environmental impact. This is also something the Government said in their 25-year environment plan: environmental sustainability should be at the very heart of global production and trade. Amendment 21 means that future international trade agreements can be ratified and implemented only if their provisions are consistent with the achievement of our environmental and climate change commitments. Again, this is a positive amendment that will help us do what we set out to do and not hinder us. I am glad that subsection (5) outlines a range of commitments and agreements that are relevant to this amendment, including those to protect biodiversity and natural capital and to improve environmental quality, which has a direct impact on our quality of life. This is not limited to this list, so any new or updated commitments will also be relevant.

Amendment 21 requires that reports be made to Parliament. The first is

“a report that explains whether, or to what extent, the provisions of that international trade agreement … are consistent with”

achieving our environmental or climate change commitments and maintaining the protections outlined in subsection (3)(b). A trade agreement is eligible for signature or ratification only once a report has been laid before Parliament. This is very important in protecting our health and environment by making sure that sustainability is not an afterthought. The amendment also requires that a report be made to Parliament within 12 months of ratifying an agreement or making regulations assessing its impact on our commitments. This shows we are committed to being green leaders and are taking our impact on the environment seriously. Furthermore, these reports will incentivise deals and stimulate greater collaboration; for instance, on developing green technologies.

We have great potential in advancing offshore wind, driving the growth of the hydrogen sector and accelerating the shift to zero-emission vehicles. Amendment 21 would enable us to grow the market for low-carbon goods and provide a level playing field for British businesses, because our industries will not be undermined by foreign industries that do not meet our standards. Now we are leaving the European Union, we should of course control our own green agenda, but we need to ensure that our trade agreements support us in doing so. As a businessman, I can see that supporting Amendments 14 and 21 is a sensible business decision and the Aldersgate Group, which represents many major businesses, has also shown its support. The Committee on Climate Change has shown that by 2030, the market for low-carbon goods will be worth more than £1 trillion a year. More and more frequently, consumers in the UK are considering the environmental impact of their purchases. Is it not time to make this a key part of our trade agreements? Together, Amendments 14 and 21 can strengthen our economic competitiveness and truly make us a global leader in the environmental field.

I know that the Government have said they are committed to protecting the environment and mitigating climate change, but I say again that these amendments will allow them to do so. I think that these are fair amendments and I hope that the Minister will consider supporting them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, to pursue the analogy made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, earlier, that a nod is as good as a wink, I shall nudge my noble friend a little further as to whether these amendments, the contents of which I support in principle, are actually required.

I understand that sustainable development and protection and preservation of the environment are already fundamental goals of the World Trade Organization; they are enshrined in the Marrakesh agreement that established the World Trade Organization and they complement the World Trade Organization’s objective to reduce trade barriers and eliminate discriminatory treatment in international trade relations. So, while there may be no specific agreement dealing with the environment—and therefore, I understand, with climate change—under WTO rules, members can adopt trade-related measures aimed at protecting the environment, provided a number of conditions to avoid the misuse of such measures for protectionist ends are fulfilled. That is something that I welcome.

If, in the course of negotiating future free trade agreements, rather than rollover free trade agreements, this is something that other parties raise, would the Government look favourably upon it? We see that President Macron of France made a statement today, offering a referendum on climate change so that climate change will actually become part of the French constitution. This is something that seems to be happening among many of our erstwhile partners, so while I can see the thinking behind Amendment 14 on climate change obligations and Amendment 21 on environmental obligations, if this is already covered by the World Trade Organization itself, and protocols thereunder, is this needed, or is it implicit in what the Government’s approach to free trade agreements will be?

Trade Bill

Lord Sheikh Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 23, to which I have added my name as a supporter. I spoke on this issue in Committee. As we have now left the EU, we must outline our priorities as a nation, and protecting children online must be high on the list.

Amendment 23 would offer significant protections for UK children online by effecting UK laws relating to online safety in future trade deals. I have been impressed by Her Majesty’s Government’s ambitions and efforts to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. I support the regulatory framework outlined in the Government’s response in December 2020 to the Online Harms White Paper, which is ground-breaking in creating a new duty of care that will make companies take responsibility for the safety of their users.

This amendment is an important part of this new strategy and should be supported. As set out in proposed new Clause 2(a) in Amendment 23, international trade agreements must be consistent with other international treaties and domestic laws on the protection of children and other vulnerable groups using the internet. This would refer to treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises the special safeguards that children need in all aspects of their life, including protection from all forms of violence, and the right to privacy.

Proposed new Clause 2(a) could also refer to the Digital Economy Act 2017, which prevents under-18s in the UK accessing pornography on the internet. During the pandemic, digital technologies have helped us to work and connect with loved ones, but they have also opened up greater risks for children. For instance, during the first lockdown, the Internet Watch Foundation and its industry partners blocked at least 8.8 million attempts by UK internet users to access videos and images of children suffering sexual abuse. At the same time, research by the British Board of Film Classification shows that 47% of children and teens had, during lockdown, seen content that they wished they had not seen.

The risks to children online are growing by the day, and we need to be proactive in tackling these harms and encouraging others to do so by supporting this amendment. In Committee, I was pleased that my noble friend the Minister said,

“we stand by our online harm commitments, and nothing agreed as part of any trade deal will affect that.”

This is reassuring, and I welcome his support. However, protecting children online is such an important issue it needs to be guaranteed in legislation, so that it is not accidentally traded away. This amendment will make sure this cannot happen by ensuring our online protection is a necessary requirement of any future trade deal.

In Committee, my noble friend also said that

“our continuity programme is consistent with existing international obligations, as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements, which are themselves fully compliant with such obligations”,—[Official Report, 1/10/2020; col. GC 140.]

to protect young and vulnerable internet users. Although I welcome this continuity, my concern is with countries such as the US, which may not have the same standard of protection as we do in the UK and the EU.

As has been mentioned previously, the trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada has effectively created a legal shield for tech companies in line with US domestic law. In this agreement, service providers are not liable for content on their platforms or the harm it may cause to users. This fails to hold social media companies to account and risks protecting the big tech firms over children online. Rather than just replicating the existing legislation on online harms in future trade agreements, the amendment will also apply to updated or new legislation. For example, proposed new subsection (2)(c) of Amendment 23 refers to

“online protections provided for children in the United Kingdom that the Secretary of State considers necessary.”

This means that future legislation, such as the upcoming online harms Bill, will be protected in international trade agreements.

The digital space is continually changing and growing at a rapid pace. I am sure that, over the next few years, more legislation will be created for new technologies that we may not even know exist at present. With this amendment, we will ensure that protecting children goes hand in hand with technological innovation.

In Committee, my noble friend the Minister reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to international obligations on protecting young and vulnerable internet users. Supporting this amendment is the best way to strengthen this commitment and make it truly enforceable, as it means that children online will be fully protected within future trade deals, regardless of the make-up of the negotiating team of the day.

Data protection is also central to protecting children online, and proposed new subsection (2)(b) will ensure that the age-appropriate design code is also properly honoured. The code came into force in September 2020, and is a code of practice that explains how online service providers can ensure that they appropriately safeguard children’s personal data.

Data is essentially the building block of the digital world and affects how we use it. Although data is important and useful, it can also be dangerous in exposing children to age-inappropriate content, such as material on self-harm, sexual abuse, bullying, misinformation and extremism. As data travels across borders, it is important that future international agreements are consistent with our leading online protections.

In proposed new subsection (3) of the amendment, a child is defined as

“any person under the age of 18.”

This is consistent with existing UK law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is important, as the age of a child differs between countries. For example, US domestic consumer law has created the de facto age of adulthood online as 13. I am sure your Lordships will agree that a 14, 15, 16 or 17 year-old is still as much at risk of sexual exploitation, misinformation, grooming, bullying and harmful content online as a 13 year-old. For instance, in a survey by Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2019, 79% of 12 to 15 year-old internet users claimed that they had had at least one harmful experience in the past 12 months. It is important that this amendment is supported, so that any person under the age of 18 can be protected, as, even at 17, a young person is still developing, and harmful experiences online can impact them for the rest of their life.

I applaud the Government’s use of digital technologies to power economic growth across the UK and abroad. This is exciting, but we must exercise caution. To quote the response to the online harms Bill White Paper:

“we must be able to look parents in the eye and assure them we are doing everything we can to protect their children from harm.”

By supporting this amendment, we are making a true commitment to create a safer digital world for our children.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am an enthusiastic supporter of this cross-party amendment to the Trade Bill.

The Government do not have that much to be proud of right now, but they should be rightly proud of their moves to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, especially for children. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has done great work, both through the 5Rights Foundation and in this House on this issue. Her efforts to persuade the Government to bring in the age-appropriate design code in the Data Protection Act were hugely important and ground-breaking. Ministers should be proud that they listened and acted to ensure that technology platforms put the interests of children first.

Although I have been critical of the delays from the Government in bringing forward the online harms Bill, we are finally seeing movement. Again, Ministers should be proud of what they are doing to make the online world safer for children in the UK through the measures they are bringing forward this year. But we know that the large US tech companies hate the “duty of care” idea at the heart of the Bill and have an equal dislike of age-appropriate design. We know that they have successfully persuaded the US Government to write into trade deals with Japan, Mexico, Korea and others that tech companies should not be liable for the harms they cause. And they do cause harms.

Just this week, I was followed by someone on Twitter. When I checked her Twitter account, I was faced with a highly graphic image of her genitalia. I blocked the user and reported the account, and have heard no more from the user or from Twitter. This is just an everyday example of what we all have to navigate.

Of course, for children, this is much more serious. I was talking yesterday to a leading researcher into children’s mental health. We agreed that, for primary-aged children, it is reasonable—and, I think, desirable—to ban online devices from bedrooms, but she advised me that her research shows that secondary-aged pupils will get a device into their rooms, whether parents like it or not. A study published last year found that 75% of parents did not believe that their children would have watched pornography, and yet the majority of children told researchers that they had.

Of course, we know that this goes way beyond porn to grooming, bullying, radicalisation and so on. We must protect our children as best we can. Parents have a responsibility, and education has some responsibility, but so do we as legislators, and so do the technology companies that profit from our engagement with this content.