Vol. 808 Monday No. 157 7 December 2020

PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT

ORDEROFBUSINESS

Questions Trident Nuclear Programme ...... 945 Convention on Biological Diversity ...... 948 Colombia ...... 951 Covid-19: Social Mobility...... 955 Conduct Committee Report Motion to Agree ...... 959 Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Seed, Plant and Propagating Material (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Motions to Approve ...... 964 Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 Motions to Approve ...... 965 Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve...... 965 Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Motion to Approve...... 965 Trade Bill Report (1st Day) ...... 965

Grand Committee Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 253 Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 265 Direct Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 World Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 275 Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 276 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2020 Considered in Grand Committee...... GC 287 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-12-07

In Hybrid sittings, [V] after a Member’s name indicates that they contributed by video call.

The following abbreviations are used to show a Member’s party affiliation: Abbreviation Party/Group CB Cross Bench Con Conservative DUP Democratic Unionist Party GP Green Party Ind Lab Independent Labour Ind LD Independent Liberal Democrat Ind SD Independent Social Democrat Ind UU Independent Ulster Unionist Lab Labour Lab Co-op Labour and Co-operative Party LD Liberal Democrat LD Ind Liberal Democrat Independent Non-afl Non-affiliated PC Plaid Cymru UKIP UK Independence Party UUP Ulster Unionist Party

No party affiliation is given for Members serving the House in a formal capacity, the Lords spiritual, Members on leave of absence or Members who are otherwise disqualified from sitting in the House. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2020, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 945 Arrangement of Business [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trident Nuclear Programme 946

House of Lords Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: The MoD routinely evaluates and reviews all major contracts as they near Monday 7 December 2020 their end dates. It conducted a review of the governance model in place for the management of AWE plc, and it The House met in a hybrid proceeding. was following that review that the MoD decided that AWE should revert to a direct government-ownership 1 pm model. Webelieve that will simplify and further strengthen the relationship between the MoD and AWE. Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle. Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]: My Lords, will Arrangement of Business the Minister confirm that the Government’s defence priorities include cyber and space projects, and that Announcement they continue to recognise, as they said in the 2018 defence review, that security challenges involve non-state 1.08 pm actors,migration,pandemicsandenvironmentalpressures? The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) How will the Trident programme fit their own priorities (Con): My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will or help to tackle any of those threats? now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber while others are participating remotely, but all Members Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: I agree with the noble will be treated equally. I ask Members to respect social Baroness’s assessment of the threats of cyber. That is distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, why the recent defence financial settlement reflects the I will immediately adjourn the House. importance that the Government attach to both cyber Oral Questions will now commence. I ask those and space activity. The nuclear deterrent, which was asking supplementaries to keep them to no longer overwhelmingly mandated by Parliament in 2016, is a than 30 seconds and confined to two points, and I ask very important but separate part of our capability. It for Ministers’ answers to be brief. is there to deter, and it has proved to be an effective deterrent. Trident Nuclear Programme Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl): The UK Question Trident nuclear programme is at the heart of our enduring and lasting relationship with the United 1.08 pm States of America. Can the Minister undertake that any discussions on the future of that programme will Asked by Lord West of Spithead articulate and take into account the enduring importance To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a of Scotland’s contribution to the United Kingdom new United Kingdom warhead is required to extend union, the union’s defence and the NATO alliance’s the Trident nuclear programme to 2049; and if so, defence? by when it will be required. Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: I thank the noble Baroness for making a very important point. She is correct that The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness the Trident missile system is essential to our deterrent. Goldie) (Con) [V]: My Lords, in order to ensure that That is why we work closely with the United States in the Government maintain an effective deterrent that respect. She is also correct to point out the throughout the commission of the Dreadnought class significance of defence to the United Kingdom. Faslane, submarines and into the future, the Secretary of State where the deterrent is located, is now the UK’ssubmarine for Defence formally announced to Parliament on headquarters. That is part of a general pattern of vital 25 February 2020 that the UK will replace its nuclear defence activity which is spread throughout the United warhead. The replacement warhead programme will Kingdom and which Scotland benefits from significantly. be delivered to a schedule that ensures that our deterrence posture under Operation Relentless endures uninterrupted. Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con): My Lords, as a I am withholding specific information about the in-service timely reminder,the House of Commons voted relatively date to safeguard national security. recently by a majority of 355 to effectively renew Parliament’s commitment to the nuclear deterrent by Lord West of Spithead (Lab): I thank the Minister authorising the Dreadnought programme. With that for her Answer. I am delighted that we are pressing in mind, the announcement of some £24.1 billion of ahead with this. It is a part of our armoury that is used extra funding for the MoD is most welcome, but can every single day in deterring, so I am pleased about it. my noble friend confirm that there has been no Treasury However, I have great concerns about AWE. Repeated sleight of hand and a corresponding—or even any— ministerial deferrals post 2010 have resulted in decay reduction in the Dreadnought contingency fund? of nuclear expertise and cost escalation within AWE, as has been noted by the NAO. Could the Minister Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: I reassure my noble confirm, after the failures of the MENSA, Hydrus friend that the Dreadnought programme continues to and Pegasus projects to deliver on time and within run to schedule. As he will be aware, an overall budget budget, and the scathing assessment by the NAO of £31 billion, with the £10 billion contingency fund, earlier this year, that AWE as currently structured is has been allocated to it. The remaining allocation able to deliver such a complex programme on time of funding is still to be determined within the MoD and at cost? following the recent settlement. 947 Trident Nuclear Programme[LORDS] Convention on Biological Diversity 948

Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD): My Lords, the Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: As I have previously extension of the Trident programme is clear and, as indicated to the noble Lord, I cannot pre-empt what the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out, it has the integrated review will say. However, a practice has recently been reaffirmed by the other place. Could the clearly arisen whereby the MoD is considered responsible noble Baroness tell us how Her Majesty’s Government for the provision and management of the nuclear view the extension of Trident in terms of their priorities deterrent and the Treasury reflects that with funding. for the RevCon of the NPT? That is why the financial package for Dreadnought comprises an identified budget of £31 billion and a Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: I did not quite get the contingency fund of £10 billion. The other elements of last bit of that question but, perhaps instead of the the deterrent will be determined in due course by the noble Baroness repeating it, I will undertake to look at MoD in the allocation of the budget settlement. Hansard and give her a full reply. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD): I asked about (Con): The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is not here, so I priorities for the NPT; if we are extending Trident, call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon. how do we fit that with the NPT commitments? Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]: My Lords, nuclear deterrence may have made some sense during Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: I thank the noble Baroness the Cold War of the 1950s. Today, there is no direct for repeating the question. The Government take the threat of invasion to our shores. In an inverted meaning view that, under the non-proliferation treaty, we remain of “defence”, we already have a military presence at compliant with international law and in compliance 145 sites in 42 countries, a number second only to the with Article VI of that treaty. We have a very good United States. Does the Minister agree that this strutting record of contributing to nuclear disarmament; we of military might across the globe has nothing to do have managed to reduce stocks by about 50% from with defence? their Cold War peak and we are the only recognised nuclear weapons state to have reduced our deterrent Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: With respect to the capability to a single nuclear weapons system. noble Lord, I completely disagree. I feel that the measure and calibre of the effectiveness of a deterrent Lord Trefgarne (Con): My Lords, the Minister has been reflected over the years. I said once before confirmed to me only the other day that we have a that the perhaps paradoxical character of a deterrent policy of continuous at-sea deterrence, which we all is that its lack of use confirms its efficacy of purpose. very much welcome. Can she confirm that we now The threats we face are becoming ever more complex have sufficient submarines for that purpose and, no and diverse and are increasing in scale. We have the less importantly, sufficient crews to keep them at sea? deterrent to deter the most extreme threats to our national security and way of life which cannot be Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: I reassure my noble deterred by other means. That is why the Government friend that, despite all challenges, we have maintained are absolutely clear that we need the nuclear deterrent our essential defence operations, including the operation for the foreseeable future. of our continuous at-sea deterrent. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]: My Lords, I have (Con): My Lords, all the supplementary questions mentioned several times in this House, in connection have been asked. with Trident, the two definitions of affordable: first, can you afford it, and, secondly, can you afford to give Convention on Biological Diversity up what you have to give up to be able to afford it? Can Question the Minister assure the House that the Government considered this second definition when assessing the 1.20 pm recently announced increased resources for defence? Asked by Lord Randall of Uxbridge To ask Her Majesty’s Government what Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]: I confirm that the preparations they are making for participation in Government reviewed all relevant issues in determining the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the that settlement. Of primary and perhaps principal Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. importance is the defence of the country and the safety of its citizens. That is why the defence settlement The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, reflects these priorities. Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]: My Lords, the recent Park) (Con) [V]: My Lords, the UK has clear ambitions announcement of an extra £16.5 billion for defence is for the global biodiversity targets to be agreed at CBD welcome, but the £13 billion black hole in the defence COP 15. Despite delays to the international timetable budget is still there. In terms of the funding for the due to Covid, we are engaging fully in the negotiation Trident replacement programme, for more than a decade process. We are working internationally—including the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury have disagreed through the Leaders’Pledge for Nature and the UK-led about funding Trident, the former arguing it should be Global Ocean Alliance, and in our role as ocean co-chair the Treasury’s responsibility as it was in the past. Will of the High Ambition Coalition—to secure support the forthcoming integrated review address this matter forourobjectives,andwillcontinuetoleverageopportunities once and for all? at all levels as we approach COP 15. 949 Convention on Biological Diversity[7 DECEMBER 2020] Convention on Biological Diversity 950

Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con): I thank my noble there is very little to distinguish the positions held friend for his answer and draw attention to my among the four nations on international policies. I environmental interest as in the register. Next year’s therefore have absolute belief that we can speak very CBD will be a crucial opportunity for the nations of much as one in wanting to raise the ambition as high the world to address the worsening biodiversity crisis. as we can at both conventions next year. Can my noble friend assure me that Her Majesty’s Government will be as ambitious on this as they have Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab): My Lords, while I been on climate measures, not least by setting robust accept that modest progress has been made in some targets to halt and reverse the decline in species and areas, will the Minister accept that the UK’s overall habitats by 2030, committing to protect what we already performance on biodiversity has been relatively poor? have and creating not just new woodlands but also Public funding for conservation projects has fallen wetlands and grasslands? sharply in real terms over recent years, and the Government’s October 2020 publication of biodiversity Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]: The indicators shows that the situation regarding a large UK is absolutely committed to playing a leading role proportion of the targets that the Minister mentioned in developing the highest possible ambition in relation remains the same or is deteriorating. How do the to the post-2020 global framework for biodiversity at Government intend to address that apparent static the CBD. Our overarching ambition is targets that, as position? my noble friend says, will halt and reverse global biodiversity loss and, crucially, that will be underpinned Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]: First, by clear accountability and implementation mechanisms. I am happy—well, not happy, but willing—as a Because we see no real distinction between climate government Minister to acknowledge that in many change and our environmental obligations, we are areas there are ongoing declines in biodiversity. The committed to ensuring as clear a link as possible numbers here in the UK are no better than those between those two conventions.Climate change represents elsewhere around the world. We are in the midst of a perhaps the greatest threat that we face, and global biodiversity crisis. However, we are putting in place biodiversity is being lost at an appalling and unprecedented the mechanisms and resources needed to buck that rate. We cannot tackle one without a major focus on trend, and we are absolutely committed to doing so: the other, and that is reflected in all our ambitions. the first Environment Bill in 20 years; ambitious measures, including restoring and enhancing nature; a new The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, the delay £640 million Nature for Climate Fund to deliver woodland that my noble friend has just mentioned has improved expansion and peatland restoration; most importantly the chances of COP being a great success next year, of all, replacing the old common agricultural policy added to by the result of the American election and with a new system whereby payments are conditional the reshuffle of people in No. 10 Downing Street. on good environmental outcomes; and 25% of our What plans does he have to meet the American team, waters being in marine protected areas. We have also and can he update us on the discussions with India to announced the tripling of Darwin Plus to £10 million get it to play a positive role? a year for our overseas territories. Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]: I am I am very confident in saying that UK leadership afraid I am not in a position to provide details about on biodiversity internationally exceeds that of any exchanges that have been happening between the UK other country that I am aware of. We are generally and the incoming presidential team. However, I can recognised to be world leaders in raising ambitions say that the incoming President has made it very clear and taking meaningful action internationally to buck that climate change will be a priority issue. We have the biodiversity trends. also heard that there will be an increased focus by the United States on nature, which we think is crucial. We Lord Oates (LD): My Lords, would it not be easier in the UK have signed up to, and indeed are running, for the Government to show leadership abroad if we the campaign to protect 30% of the world’s oceans were demonstrating it at home? How does the Minister and land by 2030, and we have high hopes that the US square the statement he made just a moment ago—that will join us in that. Another core plank of our campaign we are putting the necessary resources in—with the is to ensure sufficient finance for nature recovery; fact that government spending on biodiversity has again, we hope to be able to work very closely with the declined by well over a quarter since it reached its incoming Administration in that regard. peak under the coalition Government? Can he tell us when it is going to get back to the funding levels Baroness Boycott (CB): My Lords, at the COP required to effectively protect biodiversity? meeting next year UK representatives will be signing pledges and agreements on behalf of all the four Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]: The nations, yet at the moment there are still problems key principle of the convention on biological diversity with peat and various biodiversity issues in the United is that biodiversity should be mainstreamed. That Kingdom Internal Market Bill. What progress has means that every decision of every Government should been made on reaching an accord among our four be made on the basis of whether or not it contributes nations, which can be taken to the meeting? to bucking the trends or takes us in the wrong direction. That is essential. On that basis, the UK Government Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]: We are organising in such a way that our decisions on a work very closely with the devolved Administrations wide variety of issues are increasingly reconciled with on all biodiversity issues. It is a devolved area but nature. The new Nature for Climate Fund will help us 951 Convention on Biological Diversity [LORDS] Colombia 952

[LORD GOLDSMITH OF RICHMOND PARK] The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and buck those trends and turn the tide. As I said earlier, Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con): the single biggest financial mechanism—the one that My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness and look to will deliver the biggest change we have seen in my working with her on this important agenda. Colombia lifetime—is the shift from destructive land-use subsidies is an FCDO human rights priority country and we to subsidies that are conditional on good environmental raise human rights with the Colombian Government’s outcomes. No other country in the world is doing this. representatives whenever possible. Indeed, I discussed If we persuaded other countries to do so, I believe the the issue at length with Ministers, relevant institutions world would be set on a path towards restoration and and civil society during my virtual visit to Colombia recovery of the natural world. It is really big news. on 13 October. We are also proud to lead on Colombia’s peace process at the UN Security Council and have Lord Lucas (Con) [V]: My Lords, the Ice Ages have contributed £60 million in support of peace, stability left us with only 30-odd native trees of limited genetic and security since 2015. variety, whereas a healthy temperate forest would have some 1,000 species. Does my noble friend agree that Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]: I thank the Minister that is a fundamentally precarious position, as we very much for his Answer, and refer to my interest as have seen with recent tree diseases? Does he therefore recorded in the register. The peace process is clearly support the Forestry Commission in its determination vital. A recent newspaper report in Colombia, revealing to increase biodiversity, in both species and provenance? details of an undercover operation by the Colombian Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]: I Attorney-General’s office, apparently designed to entrap agree with my noble friend. We will be spending a lot FARC peace negotiators and undermine the peace of public money on meeting our ambitions and targets process, is alarming. The Attorney-General’s office, for planting or restoring 30,000 hectares a year by led by Néstor Humberto Martinez, reportedly provided 2025. It is essential that we use public money in a way five kilos of cocaine for the operation, but this and that delivers the maximum possible solution. We do other relevant information was withheld from the not want to see trees as just carbon-absorbing sticks; courts. Was the British Ambassador—or other British they have a crucial role to play in biodiversity, public authorities—made aware of those details at the time enjoyment, flood prevention and enabling land to of the arrest of the FARC peace negotiator in 2018? hold water better throughout the year. So yes, we want What is the Government’sassessment of these revelations? to deliver the greatest possible biodiversity and the best possible solution. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): As the noble Baroness will appreciate, I am not going to comment Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): My Lords, specifically on press reports. In terms of the specifics given that the UK leadership team for COP 26 is an of the case, she raises important challenges that Colombia all-male affair, can the Minister assure us that the UK continues to face. The issue of narcotics and drugs is a leadership team—not just the support staff—at the major one.Colombia remains one of the largest producers conference of biodiversity will properly represent the of cocaine in the world—among others. The violence people of this country and will be gender balanced? that we currently see affects local communities and former FARC combatants, led by the issues we have Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]: I do seen around drugs. We remain committed to peace not have the figures in front of me, but I would be accords, which the current President and his team willing to bet that the answer to the noble Baroness’s have assured us of. On the specific matter of the case question is that simply on the basis of choosing the the noble Baroness raises, if there is more information right people for the job, the gender balance as we to share, I will write to her. prepare for CBD is as it should be and is balanced. I also take issue with her comments about COP 26. I Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con): My Lords, I was cannot tell her that the team is entirely selected on the privileged to meet brave journalists when I visited basis of the 50-50 gender balance that we aspire to, Colombia—people such as Jineth Bedoya. Can my but the balance is a great deal more impressive than noble friend say what support the Government now she may have read in the newspapers. I would be give to the Colombian Foundation for Press Freedom happy to provide those figures in writing in due course. and how effective they assess that to be in the face of the continuous threats of rape, kidnap and death that The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) journalists face? (Con): My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I first pay Question. tribute to my noble friend for her leadership, during her tenure as Minister of State at what was the FCO, Colombia on a broad range of human rights and for standing Question up for human rights defenders. Indeed, in my virtual 1.31 pm visit, my first meeting was with journalists, to ascertain and understand more effectively the challenges they Asked by Baroness Blower have. We are aware of allegations that members of Toask Her Majesty’sGovernment what assessment the Colombian military have been illegally gathering they have made of the impact of their support for surveillance on activists, including journalists and (1) human rights, and (2) the peace process, in opposition politicians. We have raised this directly Colombia. with the Colombian authorities. Weare lending technical 953 Colombia [7 DECEMBER 2020] Colombia 954 support and will be raising the issue of journalist Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, Colombia’s freedom and press freedom across the piece in our supreme court has declared that state security forces leadership role on the coalition for media freedom. systematically violate citizens’democratic right to peaceful protest, and the Colombian army has this year been Baroness Coussins (CB): My Lords, the UK has implicated in killings in rural areas. Given that the UK spoken up in the Security Council about the special is providing funding to train Colombian police, are jurisdiction for peace, but can the Minister say what steps being taken to ensure that human rights concerns public support has been given by the UK embassy in about the Colombian security forces are properly Bogotá to this war crimes tribunal, in light of attempts addressed? by President Duque to undermine its work? Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My short answer Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I pay tribute to the to the noble Lord is that yes, they are, but the concerns noble Baroness’s work in this area. The United Kingdom he has raised are real and he is quite right to bring has provided, and continues to provide, support to them to the Floor of the House. I can assure him that help Colombia tackle, in particular, the legacy of in all the exchanges we have, including our support, be sexual violence from its long conflict. The UK continues that financial or technical, the issue of human rights to support survivors and has now helped document obligations among those who are trained and are there 1,200 new cases that are now before the transitional to protect people is very much at the forefront of our justice system. Let me assure the noble Baroness, that discussions. in my visit to Colombia I made it absolutely clear that, while this is an independent judicial body, it should Baroness Hooper (Con) [V]: My Lords, in aiming to not be interfered with. We continue to stand up for the help to strengthen and reinforce democratic principles rights of all survivors of sexual violence during the and the rule of law in Colombia, can my noble friend period of conflict. say whether the British Council is playing a significant role? Is that part of the Government’s assessment Lord Monks (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I declare an process which he has already outlined? interest as vice-president of Justice for Colombia. The Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, we transitional justice court, which was created in Colombia have an extensive programme, but on the specific and by the peace agreement, has been hailed by the ongoing engagement of the British Council, I will International Criminal Court as a benchmark for the write to my noble friend. world. Is our Government aware that the Colombian Government are undermining the court’s mandate? Of Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]: My Lords, keeping course, this is in a country where there is still widespread Colombia at centre stage and supported is much needed violence. Does the Minister agree that ending the after long agony. The Minister has referred to the court’s ability to function fairly rather contradicts question of drugs. Could the Government assist by HMG’s funding to support the peace process? What helping to provide essential access to markets for steps can the UK take to protect the court’s autonomy? Colombian farmers as a substitution for the growing of coca and, if so, how might this be achieved? This Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I would be in addition to encouraging that all FARC assure the noble Lord that during my visit, and indeed combatants stay engaged with the peace process and in all engagements through our ambassador, we raise that the ELN comes to the table, along with supporting the importance of the very matters that he refers to. In measures to ensure that human rights are respected, terms of our commitment to the peace process, I think with the possible deployment of UK police, with their the UK can be proud of the fact that it has contributed professionalism, to offer training and support to the to the importance of an inclusive peace process, and Colombian authorities. we will continue to do so. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, the Baroness Northover (LD) [V]: Global Witness has noble Viscount has made some very practical suggestions found that Colombia is the world’s most dangerous that I will certainly take forward. On the general point country for environmental activists, with more 60 murders of how we can shift those who are reliant on the drugs in 2019. How are we engaging to help protect these trade within Colombia to alternative means, that is activists, and combating climate change in Colombia again a very practical suggestion and I can assure him generally? that through our work on the ground, in particular through the embassy, we are working on identifying Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, as I appropriate measures that can be taken to ensure that said in my opening Answer, Colombia remains a human we can act responsibly and move people away from rights priority country. I agree with the noble Baroness narcotics and other drugs. that the statistics are quite shocking. In the latest figures the UN has released, at least 45 human rights Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]: My defenders have been killed this year alone. That said, Lords, as the Minister said earlier, we have an important we are working very closely with Colombia on the role as a member of the UN Security Council. Will he importance of protecting the environment and tackling go back to the council and ask for a new initiative via climate change. Our climate programme in Colombia the United Nations to approach President Duque is designed with a conflict-sensitive approach. Much Márquez to persuade him to get the peace process of its aims are to protect Colombia’s biodiversity, but moving again? If we could do that, as a result of this also to protect those who are leading important roles important Question, the United Kingdom would be within country. making a very significant move in the right direction. 955 Colombia [LORDS] Covid-19: Social Mobility 956

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): I shall certainly those who leave school having had nothing that you be happy to take that back to the UN Security Council. could call an education. They fill our prisons and our A&E departments and join our long-term unemployed Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]: My Lords, do Her Majesty’s and working poor, and they die younger because they Government accept the description of the head of the do not have any social mobility. May I suggest that UN Mission in Colombia, Carlos Ruiz Massieu, of an this is the time for building back better so that we can “epidemic of violence against social leaders, human rights defenders address this lost generation that is already with us? and former combatants”? If so, what are they doing to address the situation, Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, the noble Lord especially as regards the Colombian security forces? is correct that we want to make sure to avoid this potential loss for young people, and education is of Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, I have course a major protective factor in their lives. However, already spoken to this issue and I agree with the noble more disadvantaged students are in better schools Lord that the situation for human rights defenders is than they were in 2010, with 86% of our schools being dire. We remain deeply concerned about the continuing “good” or “outstanding”. During the pandemic, many presence of illegal armed groups in Colombia and school leaders have gone above and beyond the call of their violence and intimidation, particularly towards duty to ensure that disadvantaged students can catch local people, let alone human rights defenders. However, up. Just one of the initiatives is that as of April, any as I have already said, I can assure the noble Lord that adult who does not have a level 3 qualification can go all our support is inclusive, particularly as we continue to an FE college or other college or institution and get to press the existing Government and the president for their first qualification at that level. a renewal and real vigour behind the peace talks. In all their actions, the important work of human rights Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am sure groups and human rights defenders, and more generally that the Minister will have seen today the IPPR report the citizens of Colombia, should be totally and fully on the state of the north, which again shows shocking protected. levels of child poverty. It is obvious that Covid has pushed these children even further down the ladder. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) Levelling up will work only if the toxic link between (Con): My Lords, the time allowed for this Question child poverty and school failure is broken. Why is that has elapsed. We come to the fourth Oral Question in long-term strategy not being prioritised in the spending the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. review? When can we expect a long-term plan for children’s learning and welfare which is equal to the Covid-19: Social Mobility urgency and gravity of the situation? Question Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that specific emergency help has 1.43 pm been provided to ensure that children who needed a Asked by Lord Bird meal when their schools were closed were given support and that the early years sector in particular was given Toask Her Majesty’sGovernment what assessment funding, as were schools, irrespective of the young they have made of the implications of their policies people who were attending them. Vulnerable children to address the COVID-19 pandemic for social mobility with an EHC plan or those who were in need were in England. offered a school place even during the lockdown. Enabling more disadvantaged students to do well is TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department core to the Government’s strategy. for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con): My Lords, social mobility Lord Scriven (LD): My Lords, the pandemic has isatthecoreof thedepartment’spolicies.TheGovernment exacerbated the lack of opportunities and inequalities remain dedicated to ensuring that every child and for so many. We continue to witness the return on young person will gain the opportunity to succeed and capital exceeding economic growth. Are the Government we are committed to providing them with the necessary seriously considering implementing higher taxation skills and knowledge. That is why the Government on wealth and inheritance to help improve opportunities havegivenunprecedentedsupport,includingthe£1billion for those who are limited in them? catch-up fund, to help to tackle the attainment gap, along with an investment of over £195 million on Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, social mobility, technology to support remote education and access to as the noble Lord has rightly outlined, is more than online social care. just for the Department for Education. It also impacts on the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry Lord Bird (CB): My Lords, I am glad to hear that of Housing, Communities and Local Government we are trying to address the question of what is being and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and called the potential lost generation, who may not get Sport. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer the the chance of social mobility through education and noble Lord’s specific question, but I will write to him work that others have had. But there is another lost once I have a response from Her Majesty’s Treasury. generation and I would like the department to look at the possibility of addressing the 35% of children who Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con): My Lords, as highlighted we are already fail at school. Those are not my figures in a recent report by the Creative Industries Policy and but those of the noble Baroness’s department. We fail Evidence Centre of NESTA, only 16% of people who 957 Covid-19: Social Mobility [7 DECEMBER 2020] Covid-19: Social Mobility 958 work in the creative industries are from working-class the national living wage will be going up 2.2% to social origins. Covid has had a devastating impact on £8.91, so we are looking to help women in particular the opportunities of people from that background and gain the advantages of the economy recovering. from black and minority-ethnic backgrounds. Will my noble friend look at the recommendations of the Lord Addington (LD): Would the Minister give a policy and evidence centre—including, for example, thought to people who have failed in the examinations reforming the Kickstart programme—and work with system, who will increasingly become unemployed it, as we come out of the pandemic, to increase life and present themselves for benefits? Could some chances? assessment be made of whether they have commonly occurring educational problems such as dyslexia and Baroness Berridge (Con): I am grateful to the noble dyspraxia, so that they can have a form of assessment Lord. I am sure he is aware that, through the Culture and thus start to implement at least basic coping Recovery Fund, we have given £1.57 billion to support strategies, if not educational programmes? that sector. I hope he is aware of the educational aspects of cultural diversity that sit within the Department Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, as part of our for Education, such as the music and dance scheme. I response to the pandemic, the Government are investing have yet to read of a scheme like that that is not £900 million in additional work coaches. We have also pivoted towards disadvantaged children and children made £100 million available for high-value courses for who have free school meals, or towards improving the 18 and 19 year-olds who might leave college when diversity of those who access culture. there are no employment opportunities. That is in addition to the digital skills boot camps and the online Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB): My Lords, we skills portal that we have set up, so we are providing all know that social mobility relies not just on education opportunities and supporting more work coaches. We but on work opportunities beyond education. What have invested more in the careers service, as well, to work will the Government undertake to bring together help with the issue that the noble Lord outlines. companies that have profited substantially during the pandemic—those that distribute to households, The Lord Bishop of Worcester [V]: My Lords, I supermarkets, and pharmaceutical and alcohol speak today on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the companies—to make up the deficit of hundreds of Bishop of Newcastle, who has been delayed travelling thousands of internships and apprenticeships that have to London. Like her, I am very aware of the relationship been cancelled by companies that have lost profit and between child poverty and a lack of social mobility, business during the pandemic? Will the Government but she has a special interest as independent chair of commit to the #10000BlackInterns programme launched the North of Tyne Inclusive Economy Board. Child by two City businessmen, three weeks ago? poverty is central to the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Since 35% of children in the north-east of Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, it is encouraging England live in relative poverty, would the Minister to see, even without being asked by the Government, tell us if Her Majesty’s Government will work with the the flurry of businesses returning their business rates Social Mobility Commission to develop a national relief. We all have to tackle this pandemic together and child poverty strategy in response to the Covid-19 the effect on different employers has been disparate. I pandemic? can assure the noble Lord that, on apprenticeships, we have offered employers £2,000 for anybody under the Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords,the Social Mobility age of 25 they take on, and £1,500 for anybody over Commission is an arm’s-length body of the department. the age of 25. We are doing what we can to support We monitor its reports carefully and take its them, as well as the £2 billion Kickstart scheme, which recommendations into account. I will write to the offers six-month jobs for those between 16 and 24 on right reverend Prelate on this specific request. universal credit to give them an entry into the workplace. Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]: My Lords, as Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, far as social mobility policies are concerned, how women in low-paid insecure work have borne the much of the splendid proposed “biggest funding boost” triple threat of job losses, falling income and the for schools will be spent on teaching children how to explosion of unpaid care needs during the Covid buy and cook the right food, economically, to reduce pandemic. What work is being done by the Government the obesity epidemic and narrow the gap between rich now to address the structural barriers that women— and poor? working-class women in particular—face, including to combat low pay and secure further gains on shared Baroness Berridge (Con): As I am sure the noble childcare and caring responsibilities more generally? Lord is aware, we have a childhood obesity strategy. Part of the national curriculum is also about food and Baroness Berridge (Con): My Lords, I also have the nutrition. That is compulsory in maintained schools, privilege of being the Minister for Women, and we are but can form part of education in academies. There is looking at the entitlement to flexible working. I am also now a food and nutrition GCSE, so this is provided also pleased that we are focused on ensuring that the for within the school system. economic recovery is for women as well. We have been encouraged by how the digital skills boot camps have The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) not only met targets for women’s participation but (Con): My Lords, the time allowed for this Question exceeded them. I am pleased to say that, in April 2021, has elapsed. 959 Covid-19: Social Mobility [LORDS] Conduct Committee Report 960

1.54 pm was compounded by further insults toward the security guard and homophobic comments, which were made Sitting suspended. later to the Huffington Post. The other two incidents took place a month apart, Arrangement of Business in early February and early March. The first consisted Announcement of further homophobic comments about the chair of an APPG in an email sent by the noble Lord, 2.01 pm Lord Maginnis, after a dinner at which the noble Lord had evidently wanted to ask a question but was not The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, the called. These remarks were joined gratuitously with Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask further comments of a homophobic nature about the Members to respect social distancing. MP involved in the first instance. The incident in March involved further homophobic comments made Conduct Committee Report at the same APPG—this time, at a breakfast event Motion to Agree and to a previously uninvolved MP—regarding the chair of the APPG and the MP involved in the earlier instance. The entire tone of the noble Lord, 2.01 pm Lord Maginnis, was described as Moved by Lord Mance “unapologetically homophobic, aggressive and disrespectful”— That the Report from the Select Committee The a description that he said sounded fairly accurate conduct of Lord Maginnis of Drumglass be agreed when asked about it by the Commissioner. to. (8th Report, HL Paper 185). The Conduct Committee underlines in its report that Lord Mance (CB) [V]: I draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 68A, which states that Motions on “the issue of concern was not his beliefs but his behaviour. Lord Maginnis is entitled to hold the beliefs he does and to the report resulting from an investigation under the express them freely in Parliament”— Code of Conduct must be decided without debate because reports are highly sensitive and often involve or outside it— vulnerable people. The House has established a system “but in doing so he must treat others with courtesy and respect” of decision-making and appeals on which, I hope and must not engage in what, here, were repeated noble Lords agree, it can rely. Therefore, the House’s incidents of bullying and/or harassing misconduct. procedures do not permit me to take questions today. The report recommends However, a Member has given notice of his intention to divide the House on this report. I have received an “that Lord Maginnis of Drumglass be suspended from the service email from that Member suggesting that, notwithstanding of the House for a period of at least 18 months and until he has successfully completed a designated course of bespoke behaviour Standing Order 68A, Members should have a chance change training and coaching. At the end of this period the between publication and decision by the House to Conduct Committee will consider whether it is appropriate to end make representations to the committee, which would the suspension” then meet and decide whether to confirm its initial and will take into account whether he shows that he report. However, that would represent a procedure has engaged with the training and has gained insight quite different from what the House has instituted. into why his behaviour was inappropriate. The House has entrusted disciplinary matters in the first instance to the independent Commissioner for The House may ask why the Conduct Committee Standards and, on an appeal from her or in a case such increased the minimum recommended period of as this, where she feels a sanction that is outside her suspension from the nine months recommended by powers is required, to the Conduct Committee. the commissioner to 18 months. As I said, we gave very careful consideration to the sanction. As we I remind your Lordships that the Conduct Committee explained in our report at paragraph 21(a), we identified now consists of five Peers and four independent lay on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, both an members. The latter bring to the committee a valuable absence of any remorse and a complete lack of insight range of experience, including in standards and into the impact of his behaviour on, in particular, the disciplinary fields such as victim support, justice, victims of such behaviour. As the report states, he professional legal and police discipline. All nine members of the committee sat on the present matter and I “portrayed himself as a victim of a conspiracy by people who assure the House that it received very anxious and disapproved of his views, and insisted that all his conduct had been provoked. He also continued to refer to the complainants in careful consideration. The upshot is that the present a disobliging and sometimes offensive manner” report upholds the Commissioner’s findings that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, breached the Code of and said that he was not in fact minded to accept Conduct by bullying a parliamentary security officer either any training course or suspension. and harassing three Members of Parliament on the As I hope your Lordships will all agree, it is of basis of sexual orientation, with homophobic comments paramount importance that all members of the on a number of different occasions spread over some parliamentary community—of all backgrounds, sexual two months. The first, in early January this year, orientation and beliefs, and of any status—should feel involved offensive and bullying behaviour toward the safe and respected when they come here to work. security guard and then toward a Member of Parliament Bullying and harassment such as that demonstrated who happened to by passing by and intervened. This by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, must be subject to 961 Conduct Committee Report[7 DECEMBER 2020] Conduct Committee Report 962 significant sanction to safeguard all members of the Cotter, L. Hanworth, V. parliamentary community. Evidence is then required Courtown, E. Harries of Pentregarth, L. that the perpetrator understands why their behaviour Couttie, B. Harris of Haringey, L. was wrong and how it must change before they can be Craig of Radley, L. Haselhurst, L. Crawley, B. Haskel, L. allowed back into Parliament. I beg to move. Crisp, L. Hayman, B. Cumberlege, B. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler): My Lords, as the Curry of Kirkharle, L. Hayward, L. noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, said, under Davies of Brixton, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Standing Order 68A, agreed earlier this year, no debate Davies of Gower, L. Helic, B. is permitted on this Motion. I must therefore now put Davies of Oldham, L. Henig, B. Deech, B. Henley, L. the Question that this Motion be agreed to. As many Deighton, L. Herbert of South Downs, L. as are of that opinion will say “Content”; to the Dholakia, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. contrary, “Not-Content”. Members have also given Donaghy, B. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, notice by email that they wish to see a Division on this Donoughue, L. L. Motion. I will therefore instruct the clerk to start a Doocey, B. Hogg, B. remote Division. Drake, B. Hollick, L. D’Souza, B. Hollins, B. Dubs, L. Hooper, B. 2.09 pm Duncan of Springbank, L. Hope of Craighead, L. Dunlop, L. Horam, L. Division conducted remotely on Lord Mance’s Motion Eccles of Moulton, B. Houghton of Richmond, L. Eccles, V. Howarth of Newport, L. Contents 408; Not-Contents 24. Erroll, E. Howe, E. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Hoyle, L. Motion agreed. Falkner of Margravine, B. Humphreys, B. Fall, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Division No. 1 Farmer, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Hussein-Ece, B. CONTENTS Featherstone, B. Janke, B. Field of Birkenhead, L. Janvrin, L. Addington, L. Borwick, L. Fink, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Adonis, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Finkelstein, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Finn, B. Jolly, B. Alderdice, L. Bradley, L. Fleet, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Allan of Hallam, L. Bradshaw, L. Flight, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Alli, L. Brady, B. Fookes, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Anderson of Ipswich, L. Bragg, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Judge, L. Andrews, B. Brinton, B. Foster of Bath, L. Keen of Elie, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Brougham and Vaux, L. Fox, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Freyberg, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Fullbrook, B. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Ashton of Upholland, B. Heywood, L. Gadhia, L. King of Lothbury, L. Astor of Hever, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Gale, B. Kinnoull, E. Attlee, E. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Garden of Frognal, B. Kirkham, L. Austin of Dudley, L. L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Bach, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Kramer, B. Bakewell of Hardington Bryan of Partick, B. Geddes, L. Krebs, L. Mandeville, B. Bull, B. German, L. Laming, L. Bakewell, B. Burt of Solihull, B. Giddens, L. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Barker, B. Butler-Sloss, B. Gilbert of Panteg, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Barran, B. Caine, L. Glenarthur, L. Lansley, L. Barwell, L. Caithness, E. Glendonbrook, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Bates, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Gold, L. Lennie, L. Beith, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Goldie, B. Lexden, L. Benjamin, B. Canterbury, Abp. Goldsmith of Richmond Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. Park, L. Liddle, L. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Goldsmith, L. Lingfield, L. Berkeley, L. Cashman, L. Goodlad, L. Lipsey, L. Berridge, B. Cathcart, E. Goudie, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Bertin, B. Chadlington, L. Grabiner, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Best, L. Chakrabarti, B. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Loomba, L. Bethell, L. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Green of Deddington, L. Lucas, L. Bichard, L. Chidgey, L. Greenhalgh, L. Ludford, B. Black of Brentwood, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Greenway, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, Blackstone, B. Clark of Kilwinning, B. Grender, B. L. Blackwell, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Grey-Thompson, B. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Clement-Jones, L. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, B. Colgrain, L. Grocott, L. L. Bloomfield of Hinton Collins of Highbury, L. Hague of Richmond, L. Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Waldrist, B. Colville of Culross, V. Hailsham, V. L. Blower, B. Colwyn, L. Hain, L. Mair, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Cooper of Windrush, L. Hamwee, B. Mallalieu, B. B. Cork and Orrery, E. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Mance, L. 963 Conduct Committee Report[LORDS] Official Controls Regulations 2020 964

Manchester, Bp. Russell of Liverpool, L. Whitby, L. Winston, L. Mann, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Whitty, L. Woodley, L. Manningham-Buller, B. Sassoon, L. Wigley, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Manzoor, B. Sater, B. Wilcox of Newport, B. Wyld, B. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Sawyer, L. Willetts, L. Young of Cookham, L. L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Williams of Trafford, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Masham of Ilton, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Young of Norwood Green, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Scriven, L. Wills, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Maude of Horsham, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Wilson of Dinton, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Maxton, L. Shafik, B. McAvoy, L. Sharkey, L. NOT CONTENTS McColl of Dulwich, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Shephard of Northwold, B. Balfe, L. Marlesford, L. L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Bhatia, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Shields, B. Buscombe, B. Cookstown, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Shinkwin, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Moore of Etchingham , L. McLoughlin, L. Shipley, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Morrow, L. Eaton, B. McNally, L. Shrewsbury, E. Rana, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Simon, V. Framlingham, L. Fraser of Corriegarth, L. Sandwich, E. Meacher, B. Singh of Wimbledon, L. Sheikh, L. Mendelsohn, L. Smith of Basildon, B. James of Blackheath, L. Mendoza, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Jordan, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Smith of Hindhead, L. Kilclooney, L. Suri, L. B. Smith of Newnham, B. Leitch, L. Taylor of Warwick, L. Mitchell, L. Soley, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L. Young of Graffham, L. Monks, L. Somerset, D. Morgan of Cotes, B. Stedman-Scott, B. 2.22 pm Morgan of Drefelin, B. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Stirrup, L. Motion Morris of Yardley, B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Moynihan, L. Stowell of Beeston, B. Moved by Lord Ashton of Hyde Murphy, B. Strasburger, L. That, in accordance with Standing Order 12, Neuberger, B. Stroud, B. Lord Maginnis of Drumglass be suspended from Neville-Jones, B. Stunell, L. Newby, L. Sugg, B. the service of the House for a period of at least Newlove, B. Suttie, B. 18 months and until the Conduct Committee confirms Northover, B. Swinfen, L. that he has satisfactorily completed the other Norton of Louth, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B. requirements of the sanction; and that, in accordance Nye, B. Taverne, L. with section 1 of the House of Lords (Expulsion Oates, L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. and Suspension) Act 2015, in the opinion of this Pannick, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. House, the conduct giving rise to this resolution Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Teverson, L. occurred after the coming into force of that Act. Parminter, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. Patel, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Motion agreed. Penn, B. Thornhill, B. Pickles, L. Thornton, B. Pinnock, B. Thurlow, L. 2.24 pm Pitkeathley, B. Thurso, V. Sitting suspended. Polak, L. Tonge, B. Popat, L. Tope, L. Price, L. Touhig, L. Primarolo, B. Trefgarne, L. Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Purvis of Tweed, L. Triesman, L. Animal Products (Miscellaneous Puttnam, L. Tugendhat, L. Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Quin, B. Turnberg, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Tyler, L. Randerson, B. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species Ranger, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. in Aquaculture, Animals, and Marketing of Ravensdale, L. Wakeham, L. Rawlings, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Seed, Plant and Propagating Material Razzall, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. (Legislative Functions and Miscellaneous Reay, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Rebuck, B. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Provisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Redesdale, L. Walmsley, B. Regulations 2020 Redfern, B. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Rees of Ludlow, L. Wasserman, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Veterinary Medicines and Residues Rennard, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Ricketts, L. Watts, L. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Waverley, V. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Wellington, D. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Rooker, L. Wheatcroft, B. Rose of Monewden, L. Wheeler, B. Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Rotherwick, L. Whitaker, B. Regulations 2020 965 Commons Fisheries Policy Regs. 2020 [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 966

Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking Motions to Approve part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should 2.29 pm make this clear when speaking on the group. Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay That the draft Regulations laid before the House Clause 2: Implementation of international trade on 14, 20, 22 October and 2 November be approved. agreements Relevant documents: 32nd, 33rd and 34th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Amendment 1 Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December. Moved by Lord Berkeley Motions agreed. 1: Clause 2, page 2, line 14, at end insert— “(c) an international treaty or private law convention Conflict Minerals (Compliance) (Northern (including any amendment or protocol thereto) that Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 facilitates trade or the financing thereof.” Member’s explanatory statement Motion to Approve This amendment, and the amendments in the name of Lord 2.30 pm Berkeley to page 2, line 23 and page 2, line 33, will enable the ratification of international treaties which have the UK as a Moved by Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay signatory and enable trade or the financing thereof. That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved. Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]: My Lords, in moving Relevant document: 31st Report from the Joint Amendment 1 I shall also speak to Amendments 4 Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention and 5. The purpose of these amendments is to provide drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand a legal basis for the Government to bring forward a Committee on 2 December. statutory instrument to ratify the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. Noble Lords will probably remember that I Motion agreed. spoke about and explained the purpose of this protocol in Committee. Very briefly, I remind the House that Export Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) the Luxembourg Rail Protocol is a protocol to the Regulations 2020 Cape Town convention to reduce the risk for creditors, Motion to Approve which in turn will reduce the cost of financing for new and current rolling stock. 2.31 pm An Oxera study published this week showed, I Moved by Lord Grimstone of Boscobel think, a saving to the rail sector of about £130 million That the draft Regulations laid before the House per year. However, it is particularly important for the on 15 October be approved. British rolling stock manufacturing community looking Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Joint to develop new markets outside the UK, which I Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention believe is one of the purposes of the Trade Bill. This drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand rail protocol follows an older protocol on aircraft Committee on 2 December. leasing and financing, which I think most people believe has been very successful in financing aircraft. Motion agreed. In Committee, the Minister replied that the Government support the ratification of the protocol. I Trade Bill am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Report (1st Day) Lord Grimstone, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on this. Since they felt it was more appropriate to get 2.32 pm the necessary legal basis through the private international Relevant document: 15th Report from the Constitution law Bill, I agreed that I would not move my amendment. Committee We had discussions with Ministers on the private The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab): My Lords, international law Bill. I am once again grateful to Alex I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the Chalk MP, the Justice Minister, and to the noble and annexe to today’s list. Interventions during speeches, learned Lord, Lord Stewart, for their help in drafting or “before the noble Lord sits down”, are not permitted the new amendment to the PIL Bill when it came back and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than to your Lordships’ House for ping-pong. I am grateful the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members to the Ministers for their discussion. may speak only once in each group. Short questions of During the debate the noble and learned Lord, elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted Lord Stewart of Dirleton, agreed how important the but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a rail protocol is to the industry but suggested that the question, including Members in the Chamber, must application of the protocol was narrower than I might email the clerk. The groupings are binding and it will have thought, saying: 967 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 968

[LORD BERKELEY] taken, thanks to the good offices of the Minister and “The Government consider this to be an important issue and of Alex Chalk in the other place, but sadly they have are thinking about how best to implement the protocol in the not quite done the trick. I refer to my business interests United Kingdom. As we discussed last week, we consider that the in the register, including the UK-ASEAN Business power in this Bill”— Council, and a new role as chair of Crown Agents, that is, the PIL Bill— which curiously, I find, did a great deal of work on rail “is too narrow to fully implement the protocol, although the and rolling stock during its long history. provisions in applicable law would be within its scope.”—[Official Report, 19/11/20; col. 1574.] I see two advantages to the protocol that was signed That is very good but all it did was allow half the by the UK as long ago as 26 February 2016—obviously protocol to be implemented, which noble Lords will a very different world then. First, it will reduce the risk probably agree is not a good situation. to creditors, which in turn will reduce the cost of financing new and current rolling stock—everything The Government appear to support the ratification from engines to equipment and parts, data and manuals. of this protocol and to consider it important for the Whether these are for a new line that is being built or rail industry. However, I feel that I have been sent for existing lines, by lowering creditor risk the protocol round the houses, from the Trade Bill to the PIL Bill, will assist in lowering the cost of new, more efficient, and now the Ministers have discovered that it will locomotives and wagons for freight and passenger allow only half the protocol to be ratified. I was transport. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just grateful for further discussions with the noble Lord, said, an Oxera study to be published this week suggests Lord Grimstone, by email recently,in which he suggested a saving to the rail sector of about £130 million a year. that This is quite significant when rail funding is under “the Trade Bill should not be expanded beyond essential readiness for trading as an independent country outside the EU.” pressure, and particularly desirable as part of a move to net zero as we seek to combat climate change. I would argue that this protocol would allow the rail sector to do just that. I think it would be very useful if Secondly, it would help British rolling stock it could be included. manufacturers seeking to develop new markets outside of the UK. There is an urgent need, for example in The Minister again suggests that the Trade Bill is Africa, for more railway equipment both for urban not an appropriate vehicle for matters relating to transport—light rail, metro and trams—and for intercity finance and transport, which should be considered rolling stock. The markets are there for British exporters, elsewhere. If it were a matter of motor manufacture or but the Governments and their operating agencies do printing-press manufacture, surely those would be trade not have the resources. I am talking about countries issues as well. For motor manufacture, is the Department such as Namibia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, of Transport involved or is it a trade matter? That Zambia and South Africa. The lack of resources has question must be resolved. Government lawyers from been a major constraint, and in a number of cases, probably three different departments are dancing operators have bought Chinese rolling stock instead, around a pinhead. This merry-go-round must stop even when it is less suitable, because it comes with because it is wasting a lot of government time, as well Chinese state-backed financing. as Parliament’s. I have been sent around the houses: transport, trade and justice, and now we are back in trade. I am very 2.45 pm pleased to be back in trade this afternoon. Ministers The answer is to bring in private capital through say that they support the protocol to help achieve leasing or secured financing structures where UK-based better trade in railway equipment, so in order to stop manufacturers will draw on the considerable expertise this merry-go-round, will the Minister urgently arrange of the UK financial services community to finance a meeting with myself, the Department of Transport, their sales of railway rolling stock and equipment the Department for International Trade and the Ministry around the world. Without this protocol, many of of Justice if necessary? Will he then bring forward an these sales will not happen or financing will be so amendment at Third Reading, which I assume and expensive because of the risk involved as to make such hope would be agreed across government, to enable projects uneconomic. With the protocol, operating the Luxembourg Rail Protocol to be ratified? Surely both in the UK and in the export states, I understand the Government can get their lawyers to agree. that the export credit agencies will be able to offer If the Minister could commit to arranging such a better financial terms for exporters. Under an agreement meeting with me to resolve these issues and bringing at the OECD, export credit agencies reduce their risk forward an amendment at Third Reading, I would be premiums by 10% when the Aircraft Protocol to the very content. If not—and I hope it does not go that Cape Town Convention applies, so British adoption of way—I am minded to seek the opinion of the House, the Luxembourg Rail Protocol should cost the taxpayer if only to demonstrate the strength of internecine nothing. warfare in this Government on an issue that they all I am supporting this measure because it could support but cannot work out how to deal with. I beg make a real practical difference to skilled UK businesses to move. and financiers and improve the lives of many people on new or improved railways and trains as we leave the Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con): My Lords,I rise primarily EU. A way must be found, one way or another, to to support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as I did in ensure that the protocol is not further delayed, and Committee, in his efforts to get the Luxembourg Rail that the merry-go-round the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, Protocol to the Cape Town Convention implemented referred to stops, so I look forward to hearing what the in the UK. As we have heard, some steps have been Minister has to say. 969 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 970

Finally, many of the proposed amendments do not Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, offer a practical advantage for discernible UK interests, on the substance of this amendment, I have very little like the railway interests to which I refer, and I wonder to add to the excellent speeches that we have already whether this Bill is the place to include them all. This heard from my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the is a continuity Bill first introduced in 2017, and we noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with additional need to get it on to the statute book. support from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, we have watched Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]: My Lords, I join the his progress from Bill to Bill, from department to noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, department and from Minister to Minister almost Lady Neville-Rolfe, in utter frustration. The Luxembourg with affection as he wends his way around, receiving Rail Protocol was adopted at a diplomatic conference much the same answer from everybody: they all agree in 2007 and is due to come into force in 2021 because that this is a terrifically important thing to do, but, of enough countries will have ratified it by then to create course, supporting it is not their job or that of their that effect. It creates a worldwide legal framework to Bill or department. I do not think that he should support private-sector investment in railways and rolling divide the House on this issue because it is not something stock, as the noble Baroness said, by establishing a that we can progress by amendment or Division but, new international registry for security interests, making at the very least, when the Minister comes to respond, it far more difficult for valuable rail equipment to be he should commit to come back to my noble friend lost or stolen. These concerns have limited private with a clear plan of what he needs do to get this investment in railway schemes across the globe, especially protocol agreed. Clearly there is willingness and there in the developing world. are lawyers and opportunities; we just need a plan. Of course investment in rail matters, because it supports economic development and the battle against Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): My Lords, I climate change. As others have suggested, the UK is a turn to Amendments 1, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble beneficiary both as a buyer of rolling stock—bringing Lord, Lord Berkeley.I acknowledge without reservation down the price is therefore an advantage—and as a how much this topic means to him; no one could have manufacturer, which will be able to market itself more worked more assiduously than he has on it. effectively across the globe. The amendments before us would expand the scope The UK is a signatory to the protocol, but it just of the Clause 2 power, creating a power to make cannot seem to get around to ratifying it. The noble regulations implementing private international law Lord, Lord Berkeley, has introduced these amendments conventions as well as agreements that facilitate trade to try to achieve that ratification. I am very keen that or trade financing. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, ratification should happen, but I am concerned that for his engagement on this matter with DIT, the the noble Lord is being forced by the Government to Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice choose a route that adds even more unaccountable in relation to the private international law Bill. powers to the Government’s rapidly increasing range In Committee, the noble Lord outlined that this of widening and unchecked powers in this Bill and amendment would allow the UK to implement the in others. I will be interested to hear the Minister provisions of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; for those address this issue because I hope that he will who were not present, this protocol relates to the explain that I am wrong, that this could be construed financing of railway rolling stock. Noble Lords will be as a narrow power simply to allow us to get the pleased to know that the Government recognise the Luxembourg Rail Protocol done. I would like to be competitive advantages of ratifying the Luxembourg wrong, but I fear that I am not. We have already been Rail Protocol. We have identified the benefits that this through one shambles—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, could bring to both the UK rail sector and UK did not use this phrase, but I will—with the Private financial services. Thus the Government support the International Law Bill, which was supposed to enable ratification of this protocol; the challenge has always ratification of this protocol but turned out to be been finding an appropriate parliamentary time and a inadequate. suitable vehicle to implement it, given the very significant Let me address the narrow purpose of the Trade pressures on parliamentary time—as your Lordships Bill. The Long Title of the Bill makes it perfectly will be all too aware. legitimate to include language that would enable the Turning to the appropriateness of this amendment, Luxembourg Rail Protocol to be ratified. Everyone as we argued in Committee, we believe that the scope who has spoken on this subject so far has been a of the Trade Bill Minister at some point or other. Many of us have seen “should not expand beyond essential readiness”—[Official Report, Bills with a slightly broader purpose dealing with an 29/9/20; col. GC 40.] urgent gap in legislation, so it is not unusual and for trading as an independent country outside the it does not undermine the character of the Trade Bill European Union. I am afraid that the Trade Bill is not at large. a suitable vehicle to provide powers for the implementation So I really would urge the Government to come of this agreement. As previously explained, the powers back at Third Reading with a clause that allows them granted by this Bill are limited but vital for the delivery to ratify a protocol that they, the Opposition, the of the UK’s independent trade policy. industry and those who seek to buy rolling stock In Committee, we argued that technical matters across the world want to see ratified. This is an outstanding relating to finance and transport should be considered opportunity; I very much hope that the Government outside the Trade Bill in a way that is suitable to seize it. matters related explicitly to finance and transport. I 971 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 972

[LORD GRIMSTONE OF BOSCOBEL] was pleased to see Peers support amendments to the Amendment 2 private international law Bill that will help to support the implementation of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol, Moved by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering but it is obviously disappointing that this is not a final 2: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert “and where the new solution. I assure your Lordships that the Department agreement is in wholly or substantially similar terms to that for Transport will continue to explore all available between the partner country and the EU.” options and vehicles to implement the protocol fully. Member’s explanatory statement As I have made clear, the Government fully support This amendment would limit the application of delegated the implementation of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol. powers to the “roll-over” of existing agreements. However, I repeat: we do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to achieve this. We will therefore Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: My Lords, oppose this amendment on this occasion, but I would I am delighted to speak on Report and, in particular, be happy to work with colleagues across government to speak to and move Amendment 2 and speak to and facilitate further conversations between the noble Amendment 3. I would like to think that the amendments Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the Department for Transport are fairly self-explanatory but, effectively, they both to discuss our policy in this sector at greater length seek to and see whether a plan can be put together. “limit the application of delegated powers to the ‘roll-over’ of Again, to be clear, we do not believe that this is the existing agreements”— appropriate legislation for this amendment and we exactly as is set out in and is the intention of the will not bring forward an amendment to the Trade Bill Explanatory Notes. The reason for this is that the on this topic at Third Reading. I therefore ask the clause, as currently drafted, grants powers to implement noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. agreements between the UK and our EU partner countries. Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am very The Law Society of Scotland—to which I am grateful grateful to all noble Lords who spoke and to the noble for briefing me and helping me to draft this amendment— Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, has brought to my attention and alerted me about its and my noble friend Lord Stevenson for their support. concerns about the delegation of powers to implement I am grateful to the Minister for his response, courtesy a free trade or international agreement that relates and offer of further support. mainly to trade. It believes, in relation to reassurances We have not moved very far from where we were in that have been given that these powers could be used Committee and the Minister did not really answer the only for continuity measures, that the Bill itself does question about why it is inappropriate for a Trade Bill not limit the use of these regulation-making powers to that is designed to encourage trading when we become implementing continuity Bills. a completely independent country at the end of the year to include a text that allows a trade in railway 3 pm equipment to be ratified. As I said in my earlier Paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Notes states: remarks, if this had been the motor or printing trades, “The Government seeks continuity in the effects of these I am sure that the Department for International Trade existing trade and investment relationships as far as possible. The would have been only too keen to do it. Government has been discussing with the UK’s existing partner The Minister is pushing me in the direction of the countries how best to achieve that aim and has been working to transition these agreements to make them apply to the UK after Department for Transport. The most useful way of the end of the transition period. This is the Government’s continuity achieving this would be to have an early meeting with negotiations program, which is distinct from its future trade Ministers there and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone—I agreements program.” hope that he would be happy to join us—to see what The definition of a free trade agreement, or an we can do. It would be good, and it is important, to international agreement that relates mainly to trade, have this done before the end of the year for the same could mean entirely new agreements. The limitations reason that so much other legislation is needed. I am in Clause 2(3) and (4) should be clarified to ensure doubtful about whether the Department for Transport that they apply to the continuity negotiations programme will have a slot in its parliamentary programme, but and not future trade agreements. we will have to see. If the Government’s intention is that the agreement As my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, there is no should be restricted to continuity agreements, using point in dividing the House on this because it will not regulations to implement them has more justification. help to achieve the objective that I think we all want; If it were possible that future trade agreements could on that basis, I look forward to further meetings but, be negotiated with countries which are existing in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. signatories under current arrangements, it should be Amendment 1 withdrawn. clear that those agreements are not covered by the Bill and would be implemented by primary legislation The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab): We now which, of course, provides Parliament with more come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I scrutiny. remind noble Lords that Members other than the I hope that Amendments 2 and 3 clearly limit the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that scope of the Bill to cover the intended circumstances. short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone This is not entirely new. It was put to the House in the wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a 15th report from the Constitution Committee on the Bill Division should make that clear in the debate. in September 2020 and I do not think that the position 973 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 974 has changed since then. The Government’s response rolled over and will have to be implemented, some of to an earlier report, quoted in paragraph 5 of the which will be initiating new agreements at the same September report, was that, time. “‘the delegated power within clause 2 of the Trade Bill is drafted I am, therefore, glad that the noble Baroness has in a way so that the presumption is that the power cannot be used again asked the Government to be clear what the to do certain things—such as impose taxes, create new criminal intended purpose of these powers is. We want to avoid offences or establish new public bodies—unless there is an express them being used to implement agreements. We also provision allowing it to do so.’” want to completely avoid them being used for In the Committee’s view, implementing part of a border operating model that “The present version of the Bill and explanatory notes are we know the Government are not ready for. We want unchanged in respect of the clause 2 power.” the reassurance that any implementation of a response I have not seen a change. The Committee concluded, to questions for our export procedures which are still in paragraph 7, that: outstanding will not be used under the Bill. It would “We are not persuaded by the Government’s position that it is reassure the House if the Minister gave the assurance sufficient for the power in clause 2 to be constrained presumptively that the intended purpose of these delegated powers rather than explicitly. We recommend that the restrictions on the power be included in the text of the Bill.” remains technical and limited. I entirely agree with the conclusions of the Constitution Committee. The purpose of these two amendments is Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, to ask the Minister to explain, in his summing up, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of what the Government’s thinking is about why this is Pickering, for raising this issue and, through her, to purely presumptive and what prevents them from putting the Law Society of Scotland for reminding noble this clearly on the face of the Bill. It may be appropriate Lords of some of the detailed points which we often to press this to a vote today. I would prefer that the ignore when we put down amendments, particularly at Government agree with me, and the Constitution this stage of a Bill’s progress. As the noble Baroness Committee of the House, and bring forward their own said, and as was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord amendment at Third Reading. I beg to move. Purvis of Tweed, some rather unforeseen issues are now arising, particularly in relation to the rollover Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, it is a agreements which were originally intended to be done pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Baroness. I and completed by 31 December but which, for a have a great deal of sympathy with the intention variety of reasons, are not going to be. Some of them behind these amendments, which also relate to the fact are being done under emergency power provisions; that, from January onwards, the Bill will have to some will not be done at all. We need to have on the operate for agreements it was never intended to implement. record from the Minister where exactly these will fit in The House does not need reminding that it was the the structure of this Bill. I look forward to his response. Government’s categorical position in the past that there was no doubt that all continuity agreements Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, I turn would be signed by March 2019, then summer 2019, to Amendments 2 and 3, tabled by my noble friend then the end of 2019—it goes on. The reality is that Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seek to restrict the there are currently 13 countries outside the EU with Clause 2 power so that it can only be used to implement which we will be trading on terms less favourable than agreements which are “wholly or substantially similar” we did before, because those agreements have not been to previous EU agreements. I can assure noble Lords rolled over. The status of those agreements, with regard that all the continuity agreements that we have signed to this Bill, is now in a degree of limbo. For example, to date have stayed true to our mandate of replicating we know that our agreement with Canada is a temporary the predecessor EU agreements, and that will not continuity agreement because we expect the negotiations change for those that we are yet to conclude. to roll on regarding an almost immediate successor As noble Lords know, we have voluntarily published agreement. It is justifiable for the Government to parliamentary reports for your Lordships’ reference clarify what status that has with regard to these powers. alongside every continuity agreement, which outline Some of the agreements that we did reach have run any differences required to make the agreements operable out of time for full ratification, so they will have to be in a UK context. As those reports show, none of our provisionally applied. That means that the Bill will be continuity agreements have diverged significantly from used for implementing agreements as well as adjusting previous EU agreements. None of the debates in which ones that are made and ratified, ones that have been these agreements have been discussed has resulted in a made but not yet ratified, and ones to be made and to negative resolution. During the passage of this Bill, we be ratified. This is a very broad scope for these delegated have heard suggestions that the Government are delivering regulatory powers. In Committee, the Government agreements which go above and beyond continuity, said that these delegated powers had a purpose. The and that a more extensive scrutiny process is therefore Minister was quite clear that they are simply for required for them. The evidence is clear that this is not technical adjustments to things, such as the names of the case. We are seeking only technical changes to quangos or certain terminology, that you would not make agreements function in a UK-specific context, wish to reopen a treaty for. That has a degree of sense; meaning that the current scrutiny measures are fit for they should be limited. However, we are in a different purpose. I know that noble Lords will point to the position now, even from where we were at the beginning recent UK-Japan CEPA. It is correct that that agreement of Committee, with the full knowledge that there will goes further than the EU-Japan EPA in areas including be very many agreements that have not been successfully digital trade. However, as your Lordships are aware, as 975 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 976

[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE] discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment the Government knew that this agreement would go or anything else in this group to a Division should beyond continuity, we provided enhanced parliamentary make that clear in the debate. scrutiny of it. Setting the UK-Japan CEPA to one side, your Amendment 6 Lordships will appreciate that technical changes are required in some areas to allow agreements to work in Moved by Lord Purvis of Tweed a UK bilateral context. In these circumstances, the 6: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— Clause 2 power could be used to make technical changes to UK domestic law to ensure the obligations “Parliamentary approval of trade agreements under the agreement are met. The power in Clause 2 is (1) Nothing in this section restricts the power conferred by Her Majesty’sprerogative to commence,conduct negotiations therefore essential to allow us to implement in domestic towards and then conclude a trade agreement. law the obligations that arise from continuity agreements. The substantially similar wording is unfortunately (2) If a decision has been made by the Secretary of State to commence negotiations towards a free trade agreement, ambiguous and could lead to uncertainty as to whether a statement must be made to both Houses of Parliament. a trade agreement could be implemented via the Clause 2 (3) Negotiations for that trade agreement may not proceed power. The effect of this could be a possible disruption until the Secretary of State has laid draft negotiating to concluding and implementing continuity trade objectives in respect of that agreement before Parliament, agreements, potentially resulting in a gap in preferential and a motion endorsing draft negotiating objectives has trading relationships after the end of the transition been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. period. (4) Prior to the draft negotiating objectives being laid, the To paraphrase what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, Secretary of State must— and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, said, they asked: (a) consult each devolved authority on the content of “Why not put this on the face of the Bill, and if the the draft negotiating objectives, and power is not needed to transition trade continuity (b) produce a sustainability impact assessment including, agreements, why do we need it at all?” As stated in the but not limited to, an assessment of the impact of impact assessment and Explanatory Notes, the Trade the proposed negotiating objectives on human, animal Bill is not needed to transition trade continuity agreements or plant life or health, animal welfare, environmental protection, human rights and equalities, and themselves. However, the power will provide the employment and labour. implementing powers necessary to fully implement (5) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection trade continuity agreements over time and in all (4)(b) must include— circumstances. The Clause 2 power is intended to be used only to ensure that a limited number of obligations (a) a statement on how the proposed trade agreement will advance the meeting of the Sustainable in these trade continuity agreements, particularly in Development Goals; and relation to procurement and mutual recognition, are fully implemented in domestic law via secondary (b) a plan to maintain UK levels of statutory protection on the protection of human, animal or plant life or legislation. health, animal welfare, environmental protection, I hope that with those explanations, my noble friend human rights and equalities, and employment and Lady McIntosh is reassured that our use of this power labour. will be limited to continuity agreements that faithfully (6) The Secretary of State must inform both Houses of replicate predecessor EU agreements. As a result, I ask Parliament, and any Select Committee charged by the my noble friend to withdraw her amendment. relevant House with scrutinising trade negotiations in a manner and to an extent agreed with the Committee, of developments in the negotiations, but this does not affect Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: I am the power of the Secretary of State to conduct negotiations most grateful to my noble friend Lord Younger of as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Leckie. With the reassurance he has given me that any (7) For the purposes of subsection (6), “developments” agreement will be a continuity agreement and will means— “faithfully replicate” its predecessor, and with the further reassurance—which I would like to write into (a) a pause in negotiations; the record if I have understood it correctly—that if (b) an ending of negotiations; any future continuity agreement, such as the Japan (c) the conclusion of a negotiated round of CEPAagreement, will go further,there will be “enhanced discussions; parliamentary scrutiny”, I beg leave to withdraw my (d) the decision to agree in principle an agreement; or amendment. (e) other necessary aspects of the negotiations of which the Secretary of State considers it necessary to Amendment withdrawn. inform Parliament. Amendment 3 not moved. (8) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement to which this section applies unless Amendments 4 and 5 not moved. a draft of the agreement in the terms in which it is to be presented for signature by parties to the agreement has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) House of Parliament. (Con): We now come to the group beginning with (9) Before a Minister of the Crown moves a resolution to Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that Members approve the text of a proposed free trade agreement in other than the mover and the Minister may only speak either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State once and that short questions of elucidation are must— 977 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 978

(a) consult each devolved authority on the text of the take into consideration the remarks of the Minister proposed agreement, and and colleagues from across the House. The amendment (b) lay before Parliament an independent impact assessment does not restrict the Government’s use of the royal of the agreement including, but not limited to, the prerogative to commence, conduct and conclude trade requirements in subsection (4). agreements. The Government have indicated that this (10) In this section— is a red line for them, and that would be fully “devolved authority” has the meaning given in section acknowledged, in statute, in this amendment. 4(1) of this Act; In proposed new subsection (2), a statutory “free trade agreement” means any agreement which underpinning would be created to the commitment the is— Government have themselves said they will carry out (a) within the definition given in section 4(1) of this for future trade agreements, which is that they will inform Act, and both Houses of Parliament that they are commencing (b) an agreement between the United Kingdom and negotiations. That would now be a requirement. one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual Proposed new subsection (3) would put the United property; Kingdom on a par with the US and the EU, which “UK levels of statutory protection” means levels of provide for the endorsement of negotiating objectives. protection provided for by or under any— There is little doubt now that the European negotiations (a) primary legislation, and the Office of the US Trade Representative believe (b) subordinate legislation, or this mechanism strengthens their hands in conducting (c) retained direct EU legislation, negotiations rather than weakens them. I referred to the US legislation from Congress that provides, in which has effect in the United Kingdom, or the relevant part of the United Kingdom, on the date on which statute, a framework for how the US TRO conducts the sustainability impact assessment is produced.” negotiations. Proposed new subsections (4) and (5) outline in Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): I rise to move simple terms that the Government must consult devolved Amendment 6, and I look forward to hearing the authorities and be clear in the negotiating objectives noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on Amendment 12, because about any impact on, for example, animal welfare, these amendments concern an issue that has been a environmental protection, human rights and equalities focus of Committee and a major part of today’s and employment and labour,how they advance sustainable debate on Report. I listened carefully to the Minister’s development goals and how they maintain UK levels response to the debates we had in Committee on of statutory protection on standards. scrutiny of agreements. There seemed to be some Proposed new subsections (6) and (7) reflect that areas of agreement across the House, and I hope I am there has been some progress from the Government, in accurate in outlining what I consider them to be: it is that they have moved to develop further relationships the Government’s prerogative to make a decision to with the respective committees in the Commons and open, conduct and conclude negotiations; the Government here in this House. Discussions of a proposed protocol believe the scrutiny powers of the European Parliament on those relationships are ongoing, and I welcome and the role of British MPs in agreements made by the them. On the Written Ministerial Statement the Minister European Union were effective; Parliament needed a sent in advance of this debate, which I am grateful for greater role here at home; the Constitutional Reform seeing and on which I have reflected, I say to the and Governance Act process is insufficient in itself to Minister that it is not a substitute for other provisions, allow for proper scrutiny and accountability. This last even though it is welcome that the Government have point has been agreed by everybody, including the moved. I studied carefully the WMS, as I told the Government, who have been at pains to say that they Minister I would. It repeats what the Minister said in acted “above and beyond” the requirements of CRaG Committee and outlines a little more about where the on the Japan EPA—in fact, the noble Viscount referred Government will provide information in a public domain. to that in an earlier group. It is fair to suggest that any It also states a little more about the relationships with Government who go above and beyond the legislative the committees. The subsections in this amendment requirements they have to have regard to might point would put such commitments on a statutory footing in to those requirements being insufficient. addition to requiring the Government to inform the Outside groups as varied as the National Farmers’ committees of developments in negotiations. This is Union and the BMA have been in touch with noble not a considerable move from what the Government Lords asking them to support Amendment 6, and I have indicated their intention is going forward. Proposed am grateful for their support. It shows the breadth of new subsection (6) makes clear that nothing in this will interest in updating and improving parliamentary accountability for agreements that go far beyond tariffs “affect the power of the Secretary of State to conduct negotiations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”. and quotas, as we have stated repeatedly during the passage of the Bill. Finally, proposed new subsection (9) requires an independent impact assessment of the agreement and 3.15 pm consultation with each devolved authority on the text My amendment—I am grateful for the support of of the proposed agreement. the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and My final remarks will be on the update of the Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and the right reverend Prelate existing veto powers, as they have been termed, in the the Bishop of St Albans, who all take a close interest Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. I say in these issues—has been adjusted since Committee to “update”because in Committee, it was broadly accepted 979 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 980

[LORD PURVIS OF TWEED] I hope that there will be continuing cross-party that the House of Commons currently has some form consensus, and that the Government will consider that of veto power in the 2010 Act, which itself updated I have moved, in the drafting of this amendment, to the parliamentary convention and the Ponsonby rule. recognise the Government’s stated position on the use The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referenced this of prerogative powers. What we are seeking is a degree clearly. I referenced how Jack Straw, in introducing the of consensus that by updating and making clearer the legislation, stated to the House of Commons that the power of Parliament over these agreements at the veto power would be put on a statutory footing. beginning of the process, during the codifying and at Whether or not we wish to look at the semantics of the end of it, we will have a trade policy that is fit for what a veto is, the same power for a two-clause treaty purpose for the 21st century. with little consequence and a trade treaty of 25,000 pages During this process, I have got to know the Minister with significant consequences, notably for domestic as an honourable man, but I suspect that he may not have policy, clearly draws to attention the fact that we a damascene conversion at the Dispatch Box over this should consider whether that same power is relevant matter. I give notice that, if that does not happen, I for both types of treaties. We now know, by definition, intend to seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move. that we now have deep and comprehensive trade agreements that go far beyond tariffs and quotas. Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, I am glad to follow The Minister would accept that during the existence the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who set out the of the European Union, major reforms have been arguments for Amendment 6 with his customary clarity taken of the scrutiny powers of the European Parliament and precision, for which the House will be most grateful. to update its powers. I am seeking an update of In large measure, I agree that we have managed to our powers. secure quite a degree of consensus on many of these In response to a previous Written Parliamentary issues, and it is useful now, on Report, to see to what Question, the Government published a glossy diagram extent we want to put statutory backing behind showing how we compare with other comparable countries that consensus. We have come to the right place at the in a statement of parliamentary transparency and right time. scrutinyofferingsomeinternationalcomparisonsnapshots. I will in due course refer to Amendment 12, which That covered the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia is in my name, but I shall start with Amendment 6. and Japan—so the UK, three Commonwealth countries Both amendments are concerned with the processes and Japan. The Minister said that we should not look by which international trade agreements are scrutinised to the European Union as a basis for comparison, and approved by Parliament. I emphasise to those because that is a multi-nation entity, and we have a worried about the wider aspects of treaty making that uniquely British approach. this is about international trade agreements; we are not However, in today’s Written Ministerial Statement, seeking to go beyond the scope of this Bill and impact the Minister indicates that we should base it on a on the Government’s treaty-making powers in general. Westminster-style system—effectively a Commonwealth Amendments 6 and 12 seek to achieve different style. Can the Minister say why the Department for purposes. Amendment 6 would require prior approval, International Trade, in citing three Commonwealth by each House of Parliament, of the draft negotiating countries, have chosen three predominantly white, objectives before the Government could proceed with northern hemisphere countries? Why not include, for negotiations. It also places a number of statutory example, South Africa? Our trade with South Africa is obligations on the Government to report developments double that of our trade with New Zealand, and it to Parliament, and it would require Parliament to affords its Parliament a full vote on the deal. Why not approve a draft agreement before it is signed. I emphasise use South Africa as an example, rather than Australia signed—not, in this case, ratified. In each of those and New Zealand? three respects, Amendment 6 marks a significant change With regards to Japan, the Written Ministerial in the extent to which Parliament is not only engaged Statement was very interesting, because I can only in, but to some extent potentially able to control, the suggest that it was an omission that the Government process of making a free trade agreement. I say did not mention that Japan has a final parliamentary to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that despite vote on the deal. In fact, as required by law, on the assertion in the first subsection of his amendment 24 November the House of Representatives in Japan that it would not restrict the prerogative power, it voted to give its agreement to the Japan-UK EPA. would in reality do so—by placing statutory limitations There is no reference to that in anything that the on the exercise of the prerogative power to proceed Government have published, so the Government pick with negotiations. and choose their examples. Secondly, I share the view of the Constitution The House is now being asked to consider an Committee of this House, which said in April 2019: updating of the CRaG power.The CRaG power provides, “We do not believe that Parliament should be required to in effect, a degree of limbo: the House of Commons endorse the Government’s mandate prior to commencing treaty can place a trade agreement into a period of limbo, if negotiations.” it is not fit for purpose, but the Government can then In that regard, I cannot support Amendment 6, because ratify it anyway.The fact that Parliament cannot conclude subsection (3) makes it very clear that parliamentary that the agreement is not right and should be renegotiated approval for such negotiating objectives is required. or reopened—or that certain aspects should be done However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis again—but only put it into a limbo that the Government of Tweed, that there is a degree of consensus, and I can override is not sufficient for the 21st century. subscribe to much of what is implied in Amendment 6: 981 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 982 that the Government should seek the views of Parliament, that parliamentary time is found. However, if it is not, as well as conduct a public and stakeholder consultation, Ministers should have to extend the time under Section 21 when setting negotiating objectives. Parliament should of CRaG. be directly involved in that process, and the Government As I mentioned, this does not apply to all treaties should provide updates to Parliament when significant but only to international trade agreements. It is also developments occur during negotiations. Speaking as important to remember that it is not open to Ministers a member of the EU International Agreements Sub- to say, “But this constrains us, because we may have to Committee, I should say that our experience over proceed for reasons of public policy and timing”; recent months has been that the Minister and colleagues there will remain a power for Ministers to ratify a in his department have engaged with us substantively treaty as an exceptional case under Section 22 of and constructively in the way that we would wish. CRaG, which enables Ministers—with a Statement to Secondly,the text of the Written Ministerial Statement, Parliament—to disapply Section 20. The ratification which the Minister was kind enough to send me last process can be dispensed with by Ministers in exceptional night, gives some reassurance as to the way in which circumstances. Ministers intend to engage in future. It does not I ask my noble friend to accept Amendment 12, extend the nature of that engagement or change its which gives statutory backing to what we regard as statutory force, but to some extent it helps to answer best practice. I suspect he may say that Ministers do the question that we asked repeatedly,at Second Reading not disagree that they would behave in this way and and in Committee, about the extent to which the therefore we do not need the law to change for it to Government reiterate what was in the Command Paper happen, but I am afraid it is a simple truth that back in February 2019. I hope, therefore, that my conventions persist until they are dispensed with by a noble friend the Minister, in not only laying the WMS Government. It is clear that CRaG has a proper but responding to this debate, will continue to reiterate statutory mechanism for Ministers not to use its process the Government’s full intentions in those respects. for approval before ratification, but they should do so That brings me to Amendment 12, which is in my and use CRaG’s statutory proceeding for this purpose. name. This does not seek to restrict the Government’s I do not regard Amendments 6 and 12 as mutually right to initiate and conduct international trade exclusive. I agree with a lot in Amendment 6, and I agreements. It is focused only on the procedures by hope that those who support it will go on to support which Parliament is able, under the Constitutional Amendment 12 so that the parliamentary approval Reform and Governance Act—CRaG—to approve an process under CRaG is strengthened, as well as the agreement before ratification. Amendment 12 would processes by which Parliament is engaged in negotiating strengthen the CRaG processes in relation to international objectives during the course of negotiations. trade agreements in three respects. I therefore give notice that, when Amendment 12 is First, it would require Ministers to publish, with reached, I wish to move it formally and, if necessary, their agreement or before it, an analysis of how an test the opinion of the House. agreement would need to be implemented into domestic legislation. As we have learnt repeatedly during debates The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]: My Lords, I on this Bill, Parliament’s principal constraint over the support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Government’s treaty-making power occurs when it Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the revision he has made as requires changes to domestic legislation. Parliament he has engaged with the Government. I am grateful has control over that. For example, there is no merit in for his very clear exposition and will be concise in my a Government agreeing a treaty offering access to the support. UK market for a product that it would be unlawful to Modern trade agreements affect huge swathes of sell in this country, when they know that Parliament public policy, including consumer and workers’ rights, would not agree to change the law. We need to know if environmental legislation, food standards, health, public an agreement would require changes to domestic services and international development. MPs, who legislation, and that should be a key issue in deciding represent constituencies and work with a variety of whether Parliament will approve ratification. Ministers stakeholders, deserve the right to assess the consequences should not ratify an agreement that Parliament would of an agreement, as does your Lordships’ House. It not implement. has been argued that Brexit is about the UK taking back power, but I fear the Government have perhaps 3.30 pm not moved past the 2016 divide and view Parliament That brings me to my second point. Amendment 12 as a body waiting for a chance to take us back into the would require that ratification of an international single market and intending to scupper any agreement. trade agreement should not take place before the That is not the case. Colleagues only want the best for identified changes to domestic legislation had been their constituencies and our nation. Any suggestion enacted, should they require primary legislation, or that the Government may be ruling through fiat will laid if in the form of regulations. I understand that inevitably produce poorer outcomes. this is now a convention, although not a formal one, What this amendment proposes is far from radical. but it should be a statutory requirement. As has already been alluded to, we are currently The third element is also about giving statutory outliers on parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. The force to a convention: Ministers would extend the UK lags behind on transparency and accountability 21-day period until any debate sought by a committee compared to the US, the EU and Japan, among others. in either House had taken place. Ministers say, as they These are fair and reasonable measures that will protect did in Committee, that they would endeavour to ensure the interests of local industries across the UK; this 983 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 984

[THE LORD BISHOP OF ST ALBANS] First, it is to enable them to alert the UK Government amendment will allow us to strike deals that benefit to any negative impact they might not have fully taken the entire economy. I hope that noble Lords will on board, not least negative effects on, say, farming, support Amendment 6. environmental dimensions or food safety considerations, which conflict with the devolved Governments’ policies Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]: My Lords, it is a on such devolved matters. Secondly, the beneficial privilege to add my name to Amendment 6 in the provision of the proposed new clause in this amendment name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which is to enable the devolved authorities to flag any special he presented so articulately.This is a critically important dimension that might help the devolved nations capitalise Bill and I am concerned that, as with other Bills on new opportunities arising from trade negotiations, associated with leaving the European Union, we do which would be beneficial for them and, possibly, the not have much time. This new chapter in our history people of England. gives us a unique opportunity to make sure that we I realise that trade treaties lie outside the ability of adopt best practice and put in place appropriate conditions Parliament to amend as they progress, and that the and processes that reposition the UK as a global devolved Governments will also have to work within leading influence. I said during the debate on the parallel constraints. It is for another occasion for us to Agriculture Bill that we should be ambitious and set debate that principle, and I suggest that there are two the bar at a level that demonstrates our commitment sides to that argument. There can, however, be no to deliver on issues of deep concern. We will debate doubt that the devolved Parliaments should have just some of these later today. as strong a voice on the impact of trade deals on The Trade Bill is an opportunity to make a statement matters within their competence as Westminster does about our intentions and ambitions as a nation. This on issues that impact policies that affect England only. principle also applies to the scrutiny process we put in I would go further than this amendment provides, place as a democracy to match the best of them, as we have in other legislation before Parliament, by whether that of our former partners in the EU, the US requiring that, if the devolved Governments are not or, as has been mentioned, Japan. We need to ensure agreeable to the steps taken by the UK Government, that we have a transparent and robust process and that there should be a requirement for ministerial explanation Parliament has the opportunity to be consulted and to and a cooling-off period. That, however, is not before debate the purpose, intention and outcome of trade us today. deals. Government should see this amendment not as an attempt to slow down or thwart the negotiating I have one last point. If Westminster is implacably process but as a helpful and positive contribution to opposed to the devolved Governments having their give Ministers confidence in their negotiations. If this say in these matters, it will certainly only hasten the amendment is accepted, they will have the reassurance day when these Parliaments seek the powers to make of having the backing and support of both Houses of international treaties for themselves to protect the Parliament. I hope that the Minister will accept this interests of their people. Is that what noble Lords amendment. really want? I urge all sides to support this reasonable amendment and for the Government to accept it. Lord Wigley (PC) [V]: My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am happy to Lord Purvis, and to follow the comments of the noble follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and his underlining Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, with whom I largely of the importance to be attached to the views of the agree on this matter and on many similar matters we devolved Administrations when dealing with trade have debated in recent weeks. agreements. I will speak to Amendments 6 and 12, on The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord parliamentary scrutiny, with the experience I have Purvis, for finding a way around the difficulties which gained as chair of your Lordships’ EU International were raised against amendments in these areas in Agreements Sub-Committee, but not on its behalf, Committee and for overcoming the hurdle imposed by save to the extent that I draw on reports already made the prerogative considerations relating to trade deals. I by the committee.In any event, members of the committee cannot agree with the reservations of the noble Lord, are free to give their own views, and I note that some, Lord Lansley, on this dimension. His Amendment 12 including the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are speaking could have an application for devolved Parliaments, in this debate. for reasons I will qualify, but I recognise the general There are two points I want to deal with. The first is reasons he has put forward and will support him if he to comment on the commitments made today by the presses his amendment to a vote in due course. Minister in the Written Ministerial Statement, to which As noble Lords might well anticipate, I speak from attention has already been paid. I thank him for the viewpoint of the devolved Governments and sending me a copy of that and I fully underline, Parliaments. In the context of Wales, in Committee we support and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, addressed several of the issues which might arise in the that the Minister has been courteous, co-operative and negotiation of free trade agreements. In Amendment 6, helpful, so far, in his engagement with the committee particularly subsection (9) of its proposed new clause, on the trade agreements he is responsible for dealing the obvious issue is whether the implications of free with. trade agreements could have an adverse impact on the I welcome that the Government have put the economies of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. commitments in the Written Ministerial Statement on The need for these devolved Governments to be drawn the record today, and I look forward to hearing them in at an early stage is twofold. repeated in this debate and to discussing and developing 985 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 986 the detail to ensure that Parliament is able to scrutinise I anticipate that, when the Minister replies, he will all future UK trade agreements meaningfully. As the make some reference to Crown prerogative. In the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly underlined, Miller cases, the Supreme Court considered the these amendments deal with trade agreements only relationship between Parliament and the Executive. In and not other international agreements. The committee the Prorogation case, Miller No. 2, the court reviewed that I chair is involved in those other agreements. The a number of cases where it had intervened to stop UK will be making manyimportant new trade agreements, misuse of prerogative powers and considered the which can be just as crucial as the laws we make in relationship with the principle of parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament. I will return to that point. Therefore, It noted that Parliament’s ability to scrutinise these agreements “the effect which the courts have given to Parliamentary sovereignty comprehensively will be of great importance. is not confined to recognising the status of the legislation enacted I therefore commend the Government for their by the Crown in Parliament as our highest form of law. Time and commitment to work with the International Trade again, in a series of cases since the 17th century, the courts have protected Parliamentary sovereignty from threats posed to it by Committee and the EU International Agreements Sub- the use of prerogative powers, and in doing so have demonstrated Committee to ensure that we are briefed throughout that prerogative powers are limited by the principle of Parliamentary the negotiations and have access to treaty texts and sovereignty.” other related documents, to the extent necessary, on a As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in the Fire Brigade confidential basis and at a reasonable time, before the Unions case, at page 552, start of the short 21-day scrutiny period set out in “The constitutional history of this country is the history of CRaG. This approach was introduced for the UK-Japan the prerogative powers of the Crown being made subject to the trade agreement, but will be particularly important for overriding powers of the democratically elected legislature as the the upcoming US,Australia and New Zealand agreements, sovereign body.” for which, unlike the Japan agreement, there will be no I respectfully suggest that one should be wary of underlying EU agreements to refer to and make a attributing too much sanctity to the position of Crown comparison with. prerogative in today’s day and age. The question one Effective scrutiny, however, also requires that those should ask, when looking at the modest rights provided who are affected by trade agreements, and experts, to Parliament under the CRaG Act, is whether they have the chance to comment on the consequences of offer sufficient protection to Parliament. It might be any agreement. While “extensive stakeholder argued that, while there may be few problems with a engagement”—I quote from the Government—on trade simple, straightforward agreement, where the answer negotiations by the Government is welcome, it is as to whether Parliament consents is a binary yes or imperative that specified stakeholders and experts also no, the answer should be different for complex trade have early enough sight of the agreements to enable agreements which may affect many facets of day-to-day them to form a view and to feed into parliamentary life in the UK. In particular, the inability of Parliament scrutiny of the agreements. Again, this will be particularly to play a role until after an agreement has been signed relevant where there is no underlying EU agreement is problematic, since it has no ability to press for its standing as a comparator and baseline. priorities to be included within the negotiating mandate or to amend the agreement once signed. 3.45 pm For that reason, Amendment 6, which seeks a greater The Written Ministerial Statement broadly reflects role for Parliament, particularly in the discussion and commitments previously made by the Government, determination of negotiating objectives, needs to be notably in the February 2019 Command Paper to considered carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of which attention has already been paid. But the Command Tweed, has clearly explained the purpose behind this Paper appears to contain a stronger commitment to amendment. It would give a greater role to Parliament the parliamentary scrutiny of negotiating objectives, in setting the negotiating objectives—not conducting stating that: the negotiations. That is difficult enough for a single “At the start of negotiations the Government will publish its body, such as the Cabinet of the country, but there is Outline Approach which, as described above, will include our much to be said for setting the negotiating objectives. I negotiating objectives and be accompanied by a scoping assessment therefore have much sympathy with this. As we noted, which will be informed by economic modelling, setting out the when we get to an agreement to be scrutinised by our potential economic impacts of any agreement.” committee or our fellow committee in the House of Then there is this sentence: Commons, it comes with a take-it-or-leave-it question. “We will ensure that Parliament has a role in scrutinising these For many, the answer is that it is better to have an documents so that we can take its views into account before commencing negotiations.” agreement than not, but that does not mean it would not have been a good idea to have an opportunity to This last sentence is absent from the WMS and, in my consider the negotiating objectives when they could capacity as chair of the EU International Agreements have influenced the course of the negotiations. Sub-Committee, I would like to discuss with the Government how this commitment could be reinstated As for Amendment 12, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the scrutiny of negotiating objectives strengthened. who sits on the committee with me, has explained fully I have previously referred the House to the statement and, in my opinion, convincingly why his amendment by the great constitutionalist Walter Bagehot that: would be valuable. It is of course much better to have “Treaties are quite as important as most laws, and to require commitments on the statute book than to have to the elaborate assent of representative assemblies to every word of depend upon oral commitments, so I agree with him the law, and not to consult them even as to the essence of the about this amendment and have nothing to add in treaty, is prima facie ludicrous.” support of it. 987 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 988

[LORD GOLDSMITH] would cover climate change—I am delighted to see the Finally, I recognise that the process of scrutiny will Minister nodding on that—so I hope that we can be, to some extent, a partnership between government move from that progress, which I very much welcome and Parliament. As I have said, I fully acknowledge and am grateful for, to accepting this amendment and the co-operative approach taken by the Minister and making this a statutory requirement. his colleagues in the department. As for practices, we will continue to look to improve those and I look Lord Tyler (LD) [V]: My Lords, I speak in support forward, as I have said, to the further discussions of Amendment 6 in the name of my noble friend envisaged by the Written Ministerial Statement to Lord Purvis of Tweed. I will also refer briefly to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Baroness Hayman (CB): My Lords, I declare my I served on the Joint Committee that examined the interests as set out in the register. draft legislation that eventually emerged as the I rise to support Amendment 6 in the name of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010— noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I do so for two reasons. First, usually referred to as CRaG, as it has been during the I believe that it provides a robust framework for the debates on this Bill. On that committee, we were quite appropriate scrutiny of international trade agreements. clear that we sought to correct the previous anomaly, The CRaG arrangements are not satisfactory. It is which enabled the Government of the day to push important that both civil society and Parliament have through very significant international treaties with opportunities at the right time to scrutinise what is going minimal or non-existent parliamentary scrutiny. There through and what is being negotiated. I hope that was a great deal of pressure for extensive ratification the changes that have been made since we discussed rights for both Houses, not least from Conservative these issues in Committee will convince the Government colleagues who were, of course, in opposition then. that they can agree to this amendment. I support it not However, we eventually resolved—for the sake of just on the principle of parliamentary scrutiny but unanimity on the committee—on a minimalist because the amendment sets out the areas to be covered compromise. Part 2 of CRaG therefore provided only inboththesustainabilityimpactassessmentinsubsection(4) for both Houses to have a statutory right to scrutinise and the independent assessment in subsection (9). treaties, with the Commons given a theoretical power to delay ratification. Under that Act, neither House In his contribution, the right reverend Prelate the had an obligation to debate the terms of a proposed Bishop of St Albans reminded us that trade agreements treaty,let alone vote on it, but both could seek assurances cover a huge swathe of public policy. As was suggested and explanations from the appropriate Minister before during earlier stages of the Bill, there is a temptation consenting to ratification. to consider that there is a simple economic impact that is the criterion by which we judge trade agreements. I It is important to remind your Lordships that, in do not believe that that is sustainable. We run the risk 2010, we were all in a totally different political and of importing into this country goods and services that diplomatic environment. The United Kingdom was diminish our stated—and, indeed, our statutory— involved—and bringing extensive experience to bear—in responsibilities in areas such as climate change and combined treaty negotiations with our EU partners. environmental protection. However,our Government, and therefore our Parliament, were not engaged in the intricate details and the much Equally, we run the risk of losing opportunities in higher level of trade discussions that now face us, with the huge green economy that is coming. We have seen unprecedented complexity and significance for the that the Government recognise this. There have been future of our nation. In its report from April 2019, some welcome recent developments, such as the Prime Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties, the Constitution Minister’s 10-point plan and our raised commitments Committee of your Lordships’ House put the challenge on climate change and emissions, but it is really important very well, saying that that we go from these high-level aspirations to ensuring “the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance that we implement and integrate these commitments— Act 2010 were enacted in a time where leaving the EU had not particularly on the environment and climate change—into been seriously contemplated.” policy and legislation. That is not some soft, optimistic, This was its primary conclusion: rose-coloured view of the world; indeed, the Prime “The current mechanisms available to Parliament to scrutinise Minister himself said: treaties through CRAG are limited and flawed.” “Green and growth can go hand-in-hand.” That has obviously been repeated often this afternoon. If that is so, we must look at what trade agreements we I am sure that all members of that Joint Committee implement and how they fit in with our responsibilities would join with me in accepting the wisdom of that and aspirations. contemporary view. In Committee, I was critical of the fact that there Moreover, it was endorsed by the EU Committee in was no mention anywhere in the Bill of the environment its June 2019 report, Scrutiny of International Agreements: and climate change. I ought to pay tribute to the Lessons Learned, which stated: Minister and the Government for making clear in the “We therefore agree with the Constitution Committee that the Written Ministerial Statement and accepting the argument CRAG Act is poorly designed to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny that a wide swathe of policies are affected by trade of treaties.” deals, saying that, when they publish the proposed In its following report, Treaty Scrutiny: Working independently verified impact assessment, it will cover Practices—dated July 2020—the committee went on the economic and environmental impacts of the deal. to warn that cosmetic changes, with no statutory As I understand it, the legal advice is that “environmental” backing, would be unlikely to be sufficient. It said: 989 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 990

“If we cannot make treaty scrutiny work within the current immense strain … Ministerial insensitivity and indifference are, framework, legislative change may prove the only means to ensure frankly, turbocharging nationalism and separatism.”—[Official adequate scrutiny of international agreements.” Report, 8/10/20; cols. GC 220-22.] Ministerial Statements are not the same thing. Therefore, I hope that the Minister responding to this debate will the first justification for my noble friend’s amendment— accept the strength of concern on this issue and the now supported by distinguished Members from many need for the amendment to address it. parts of the House—is that it carefully and Finally, I turn to Amendment 12, tabled by the comprehensively spells out the essential elements for noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which has self-evident merit. detailed parliamentary scrutiny for all new international It was always a weakness of the very limited procedure trade agreements. As my noble friend Lord Purvis set out in CRaG that the timing and sequence of any stated earlier, in essence, this amendment updates parliamentary scrutiny could not guarantee a coherent CRaG to meet the dramatically different requirements process. For example, if the more rigorous role of the of Brexit and establishes a critical, crucial constitutional Commons preceded any detailed scrutiny in this House, principle. by definition, the decision of MPs to ratify a treaty or In the debate on the committee report in your to withhold ratification could be taken without the Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lady Bowles of benefit of the views of your Lordships. That would Berkhamsted, drawing on her experience in EU clearly be farcical. negotiations, commented: The improvement suggested here would ensure a “The Government’sapproach is overly biased towards maximising more rational sequence for debate and for relevant their secretive freedom, believing that that always enables playing consequent primary and secondary legislation. their best hand. That is not my experience. The Government can Amendment 12 seems to me a useful addition but, as be in a stronger negotiating position if Parliament is on their side the noble Lord clearly appreciates, it is no substitute on the journey.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. GC 130.] for the essential scrutiny requirements of the cross-party That view has been reiterated this afternoon. Amendment 6. As my noble friend Lord Purvis emphasised, nothing compares in clarity with inclusion 4 pm in the Bill. The restatement of a convention, or even a Written Ministerial Statement, is no substitute for The second, very substantial justification for this inclusion in the law of the land. As far as I can see, amendment relates to the peculiarly significant scope these two amendments are entirely complementary, of this Bill. First, it is a subject of unique importance and I hope the Minister will accept them both as to our fellow citizens. The trade it deals with could clearly strengthening the whole Bill. impact not just on the concerns of food producers and processors but of everybody who eats—you cannot Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: My Lords, get more universal than that. We will come back to these two amendments have much to commend them these concerns when we consider the later clauses and and dovetail neatly with parts of my Amendment 7, amendments on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. which we will consider in a moment: in particular, that For now, we need only register the emphatic support any trade agreement or report from the Trade and for Amendment 6 from the farmers’unions, also referred Agriculture Commission should be laid before Parliament to earlier.When I was first elected, Conservative candidates in sufficient time for it to be considered. I will go into and MPs were much more respectful of the views of more detail when we come to that group of amendments, the farming community and of the NFU than they but it would also extend the period during which a appear to be now, but I trust that Ministers do not vote shall be held in each House to up to 42 days, so completely ignore their advice. In its excellent there is an overlap between Amendment 6 and my memorandum for this debate, the NFU is unequivocal Amendment 7. This is important for the reasons set in endorsing Amendment 6: out by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, my noble friend “Securing the backing of MPs and Peers for these deals Lord Lansley and others, particularly, the noble and through votes in Parliament not only improves democratic learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who chairs the committee accountability for UK trade policy, but also strengthens the hand and speaks with great authority on these issues. There of negotiators in establishing red lines and legitimately stating must be time for both Houses of Parliament to consider what will and will not be negotiable if a deal is to be secured.” those agreements, in the terms set out by the noble Its support for Amendment 6 is summarised as follows: Lord, Lord Purvis, and others supporting Amendment 6. “New and clear arrangements that improve Parliamentary I refer again to the useful table included on page 77 oversight and democratic accountability are critical as we ‘take of the National Food Strategy, part 1, which I refer to back control’ of our independent trade policy.” as the Dimbleby report, part 1, which sets out the It would be a sad day when a Conservative Government scrutiny of trade agreements in the various legislative refused to listen to the NFU. Chambers. It is true that in Australia, Parliament must Secondly, the Bill strays into very controversial vote on legislation to implement a trade agreement territory in its challenges to the devolution settlements. only where it requires changes to national laws. However, As other Members have emphasised at all stages of the tariffs are set in statute in Australia, so that effectively Bill, the dangers could not be more dire. In the Committee gives Parliament a vote on trade treaties. For TTIP, the debate on the Bill on 8 October, my noble friend Lord House in Australia spent two days debating the treaty Bruce of Bennachie summarised the serious concerns and the Senate one day. In Canada, as in Australia, expressed from all parts of the House: Parliament does not have a formal vote on treaties; the “Far-reaching decisions under the Agriculture Bill, the Trade Executive must lay a deal before Parliament 21 days Bill and the forthcoming Internal Market Bill put the devolution before any action to implement the agreement is taken. settlements and the integrity of the United Kingdom under However, as in Australia, Canada’s tariffs are set in 991 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 992

[BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING] been criticised by five parliamentary committees,including statute, so again, Parliament inevitably needs to vote the Lords Constitution Committee and the Lords on the deal as a whole as well as any implementing International Agreements Sub-Committee. legislation. Modern trade agreements affect large parts of public Perhaps the most thorough—albeit that we are policy, including consumer and workers’ rights, leaving the European Union—is the European Union environmental and climate change legislation, food process itself. In New Zealand, Parliament must vote standards, health, public services and international on legislation to implement the trade agreement, which development. In such a context, it is vital that trade means that the treaty is voted on again by the House deals are developed democratically. I support only if it requires a change in domestic legislation. It Amendment 6. I also support Amendment 12, in the has already been said that in Japan, the approval of name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If the noble the National Diet, the Japanese Parliament, is required Lord, Lord Purvis, eventually presses his amendment, for any trade agreement to come into force, and in I will support him in the Lobbies this evening. Switzerland, all trade agreements must be approved by the Federal Assembly, the Swiss Parliament. If Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]: My Lords, 50,000 Swiss citizens request it, they must be put to a it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. referendum. Our scrutiny of trade agreements—not I agree with everything that she said. I was going to continuity agreements but new agreements, where, as speak only to Amendment 6 but the opening speech the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, identified, on Amendment 12 was very convincing, so if the there is no underlying EU agreement—is deficient House divides on either amendment, I shall vote for compared to that of other national jurisdictions and them. Parliaments. My problem with the Bill is one that I have had for I have sympathy with Amendment 6, although I the last two years with this Government—particularly will go on to explain when we come to the group in the last year, when they have kept trying to reduce beginning with Amendment 7 why I believe that my our democracy. I simply do not understand how a wording is preferable. Conservative Government can justify that. If they were sitting on the Opposition Benches at the moment, Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]: My they would be shouting loudest about how corrupt it Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, all was and how we were trying to take power back for Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I support the objectives the people, not for politicians, and so on. For me, it is of Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord incredibly frustrating constantly to hear and see these Purvis, and colleagues, which seeks to ensure that attacks on democracy.I do not think that this Government trade deals are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and have a clue about it. that consultation takes place with the devolved We have discussed these issues more than once over Administrations, a feature that is currently missing. the past four years; it is getting quite repetitive. When This is particularly acute as we have just three weeks we in this House amend and improve any legislation, it until the end of the transition period and do not know goes back to the Commons and then of course it is all whether there is to be a trade deal or whether, if whipped out or the Bill is delayed for a few years, so in agreed, it will be zero tariff, or whether the UK will be some ways all our work is for nothing. With this Bill, operating under WTO rules. the Government are again trying to bypass scrutiny. This amendment, in the names of the noble Lord, Why would they want to do that? Scrutiny helps—it Lord Purvis, and other noble Lords, has been supported can highlight the problems, as well as improvements—so by the Trade Justice Movement and Greener UK. It why anybody would want to do that, I just do not has five properties, which are very important for the understand. It should be enough, even for the most scrutiny of trade deals. First, before negotiations, there loyal Conservatives on the Government Benches, to will be a debate and vote by MPs on the Government’s ask, “What on earth we are doing here? Why are we negotiating objectives; secondly, during negotiations, bothering? There is all this hard work from the second there will be additional scrutiny through a dedicated Chamber and it comes to nothing.” parliamentary committee; thirdly, after negotiations, The Greens believe that the market and the economy there will be a vote in both Houses on a final deal, should serve the people, not necessarily politicians or prior to ratification; fourthly, there will be mandatory even big business. Therefore, I strongly support sustainability impact assessments on the impact of the Amendment 6. It is a case of caring very much about new trade deal on the environment, public health, climate change, the environment, workers’ rights and human rights and global development; and, fifthly, the quality of our food; I just do not understand why there will be consultation with the devolved authorities. the Government are choosing to fight this. I accept As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, those things that having a huge majority in the Commons means absolutely are important. Coming from Northern Ireland that they can pretty much do what they like, but why and having been a representative of the devolved would they? Why not honour some of the promises institution there, I say that it is important that we that they made in the Brexit debate and give power recognise and acknowledge the devolution settlements. back to the people? Those five provisions offer a considerable improvement on the level of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals in 4.15 pm the UK, whose processes lag behind those of the EU Baroness Noakes (Con): My Lords, it is always a and other countries. The current treaty scrutiny system, pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of as outlined in the CRaG Act, is inadequate and has Moulsecoomb, although I cannot accept her diagnosis 993 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 994 of this being an attack on democracy. I shall make just sure that there are safeguards throughout the process three short points, because we do not want this to go of scrutiny, and I understand that. I agree in principle on all day. with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the right reverend First, noble Lords who have brought forward these Prelate. It is an impressive spectrum of opinion. amendments have not adduced any evidence as to why The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, refers to CRaG as they are needed. The core procedures for the handling minimalist, and he may well be right. However, I said of treaties have served this country well. The Ponsonby earlier in our proceedings on the Bill that I had accepted rule, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, the Government’s view that they had been flexible and reminded us of again today, is now enshrined in that CRaG was, for the time being, fit for purpose and CRaG. As I said, no practical issues have been put need not be altered yet—at least not radically. We have forward for these amendments being needed. The made a good start. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, Government have responded to the desire, as expressed uses the word “consensus”; I admire what I know of by both Houses of Parliament, for more information the European Parliament’s scrutiny processes, especially and more involvement in the processes of scrutiny of its opening up to civil society in all member countries, trade treaties, most recently in the latest Ministerial but I have misgivings about a debate on the objectives Written Statement. I think that I am the only noble of every FGA, because I can guess how much it would Lord speaking here today who has not seen a copy of slow down our own process. that Statement but I am sure that it is splendid. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an important My second point is on the royal prerogative and point about domestic legislation, but all this adds to prerogative power. I agree with my noble friend the CRaG process. It is desirable, and there may be a Lord Lansley that, despite Amendment 6 saying that time for it, but as we are entering a new era of trade it does not seek to override or diminish prerogative agreements, we should wait to see how our existing power, its effect is that, in practical terms, it does process will cope with so much demand. Do we have so—in particular, in relation to the approval of the the resources to do this? I am not sure whether the negotiating objectives, which is not part of our current noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has taken that on board. processes—and could easily restrict the prerogative Wehave already missed the boat with a row of important power available to government. That is why I think new agreements, either past or imminent. I suggest that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ instead that CRaG and the issue of 21 days should be House did not recommend that we go down that reviewed in a year’s time. So while I am sympathetic to route. the amendment I may have to abstain on the vote. My third point is on parliamentary accountability. Both amendments in this group are predicated on a The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab): I call the view that parliamentary accountability requires legislation noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. No? Then I call the to make it effective. That is plainly not in accord with noble Earl, Lord Caithness. our parliamentary history.It is also, I submit, a dangerous route to go down. The strength of the UK’sparliamentary The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I am sorry system is its capacity to evolve constantly, as we have that the noble Baroness was unable to give us the seen in relation to free trade agreements with the way benefit of her wisdom. in which the Government have been open to involving An advantage of being “tail-end Charlie” as the Parliament increasingly and in different ways, including last speaker of 15, is that most of the points have through engagement with committees. already been made, which helps to speed things up. If we wrote too much into legislation, that could Let me start with Amendment 12 in the name of my work against the flexibility that is the hallmark of our noble friend Lord Lansley. He made some convincing system and has served us well, in particular over the arguments and, unless the Minister can convince me last couple of years. I believe that that could end up otherwise, we should support the amendment. The being Parliament’s loss at the end of the day. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said that CRaG was fit for noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to purpose. I contend that it is not. It was designed in the constructive partnership that has been emerging another era, when we were part of the EU and the EU between his committee on treaties and the Government, was doing our trade deals. Now we are doing our own and the practical ways in which the work of his trade deals—good luck to the Minister and godspeed excellent committee is being helped to be effective. I to all his civil servants; they will need it in this complicated have to say to noble Lords that the more you codify, world. The trade deals that we negotiated 50 years ago the more it is less likely that constructive partnership are hugely different from those we are negotiating becomes the hallmark of an ongoing approach. Noble now. Today’s deals are much more complex and involve Lords really cannot have it both ways. not only trade but each and every one of us—the environment, biodiversity, the way we live. Therefore, The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]: My Lords, I also it is important that Parliament is properly involved. find Amendment 6 rather severe: not only is it asking How complex trade deals have become is the for accountability to Parliament but it challenges the compelling argument for Parliament to be given a entire CRaG process. However, I accept that there is statutory right to look into these matters. Trade deals strong public feeling on this, which is confronting the are only going to get more complicated, therefore the Government’spost-Brexit policy directly and the political discrepancy between the current situation, which is impetus towards global free trade. Many stakeholders out of date, and what is needed in the future, is and charities have already commented on several FTAs growing. Effective scrutiny by Parliament on a statutory currently passing through Parliament; they want to be basis would improve the quality of decision-making. 995 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 996

[THE EARL OF CAITHNESS] Lord Lansley, eloquently stressed that Ministers should Nothing hones a civil servant’s pen quite like getting not ratify an agreement that would not be approved by Parliament to have a good look at what they are Parliament. In respecting the royal prerogative, the doing. individual nations must not find themselves sidelined. We have heard that a common objection to the Amendment 6 is essential to consolidate,not destabilise, wording of Amendment 6 is that it ties the Government’s the united nature of the United Kingdom. To break negotiating arms and affects their room to negotiate up the United Kingdom would indeed be an “abject with the other side. I do not think it does. In America, failure of statecraft”. Congress is a very useful weapon that the US negotiators use. They constantly say, “We couldn’t possibly get Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]: My Lords, that through Congress”. Our discussions with the EU we have had a good and wide-ranging debate today. I are at a very delicate stage, and if there had been a want to pick up on the speeches of the noble Lord, mandate from Parliament that one of the negotiating Lord Purvis, who introduced Amendment 6, which I objectives of this Government was that we would be a have signed, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, whom sovereign state equal to the EU, we would not be I thank for his clear introduction to Amendment 12, having prevarications with some of the EU states. We which we also support. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would have had a much better chance of getting a is not a normal ally on many of the issues we have deal. Rather than the Prime Minister saying: “We are discussed in your Lordships’ House over the years. going to be a sovereign state”, he could quite rightly However, he made the point about the importance of say: “Parliament has said that we are going to be a trade so well that I wanted to endorse it. Trade is now sovereign state”. That would have saved a lot of the central to our existence as a country and very important rather frustrating and silly discussions that are going to the individuals who live here because it impacts on on at the last minute. It would also consolidate the almost every aspect of our lives. position of the UK as a serious negotiating partner 4.30 pm which will ratify whatever deal is agreed if Parliament The issues that have dominated this debate are has had a proper say. interrelated with the three key issues that have been I am very much aware that the Minister has made around since your Lordships’ House first discussed concessions on a number of points, but that is not the trade when considering the original trade Bill, but they same as having them in statute. In this day and age, are also separate. They are interrelated because they given what has happened in America and how the EU all rely on Parliament and the Executive co-operating looks at its trade deals and has adapted, it is time that in a constructive partnership, which I agree exists, to we adapted and took a firmer view, giving Parliament achieve the best outcomes for the UK, as has already the statutory backing that it needs to look at these been mentioned. The issues are: the non-regression of matters, but not to the extent of tying the hands of the standards—dealt with in Amendment 22 and addressed Minister and the Government in any negotiating deal. in Amendment 12, proposed by the noble Lord, Therefore, I support Amendment 6 in the name of the Lord Lansley; the scrutiny of trade agreements and noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. the objectives, and progress made towards those objectives in the final texts; and the process of ratification. These Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB): My Lords, I am issues are not so separate that they require separate sorry that technical difficulties meant that I could not approaches, but they point to different directions under come in just now. I support Amendment 6 in the name different sources of authority. I believe that, with of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, who made constructive partnership, the Government and those the case for it comprehensively. In Committee, the debating these issues today are not far apart, and it involvement of the devolved Administrations in should be possible to get at least a working way forward, consultation over trade was stressed whenever UK even if we cannot find the exact words we want today. Ministers wished to make an agreement that included We must recognise that we are in a bit of a quandary. issues that fall within devolved competences. Respect What we thought was a settled set of positions has for, and consideration of, the devolved responsibilities turned out to be a moving target. A good example is and implications of agreements will result in the recent amendment of the Agriculture Bill during clearer communication between Westminster and the its progress between the other place and your Lordships’ Government, in better relations with the devolved House.Amendments were made which effectively support Administrations, and in clear messages to the population the non-regression of standards, at least in relation to overall. This amendment would bring agreement centrally agriculture and the environment. Clearly, that reads into Westminster, not disrupted by protesting voices across to this Bill, and we will need to return to that from devolved nations that fuel separatist movements. issue when we consider Amendment 22. As the noble The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has set out the benefits and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, a Written with arguments that I endorse. Ministerial Statement issued this morning offers greater On issues relating to health we discussed at length reassurance regarding the practices and processes required the importance of the Government’s commitment that under the present scrutiny and approval arrangements. the NHS is not up for sale. This country’s unique However, these are not underpinned by statute and databases have enormous potential value. As health, there are limitations in respect of some of the issues whether human, animal or ecological, is a devolved the Committee will want to raise with the Minister. responsibility, it is essential that anything touching on Given that we are slightly uncertain as to the health in its broadest context is the subject of consultation Government’s position, how do we want to progress? with the devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Where do we want to go with these issues? I hope this 997 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 998 debate has revealed that there is a modest but good extensive and comprehensive information with Parliament case for a 21-st century model for how we do trade. We ahead of negotiations with the US, Australia, New are the only major democracy which does not allow Zealand and Japan. On 12 October, I made a Written Parliament a role—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, Ministerial Statement setting out the transparency made that clear in her résumé of the issues in play in and scrutiny arrangements for specific international other countries. If we do not do something at this trade deals, starting with Japan. Today, I have made a stage, trade will be the only public policy area effectively further comprehensive statement setting out arrangements off limits for the UK Parliament. That is unacceptable. for trade agreements with the United States, Australia Amendment 6, as has been said, tries to engage and New Zealand and the UK’s proposed accession to with the Government’s red lines. It recognises the royal the CPTPP.I believe this statement adds further weight prerogative, but it is wise to bear in mind the point to the enhanced procedures we have already outlined. made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I was pleased that the nobel Baroness, Lady Hayman, about not sacrificing our objectives and principles in picked up on and welcomed the reference to environmental pursuit of the royal prerogative. It has been challenged impacts, and grateful for the pragmatic comments over the years and continues to be debated in relation about the statement from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. to parliamentary sovereignty, which we all believe to I was also grateful for the comments made about the be more important. Amendment 6 provides a schema statement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that would give Parliament the effectiveness it currently and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. lacks in reviewing and approving trade negotiations, I believe that our approach to transparency, and and I commend it to your Lordships’ House. openness to scrutiny by Parliament and stakeholders, However, that issue is best addressed by is at least as strong as any other Westminster-style Amendment 12, which focuses on parliamentary democracy,such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. procedures under the CRaG legislation. It includes a I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that nothing very important element which we have not debated should be read into the omission of South Africa from sufficiently: an analysis of changes in domestic legislation this list. if, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, that is Your Lordships have drawn comparisons between required by a future trade agreement; and a requirement our approach and those taken by the EU and US. to undertake those changes before ratification, ensuring They are more similar to each other with their federalised that the statute book is in order before we sign up and arrangements, than they are to the UK. The European implement the deal negotiated for us. It looks very Commission negotiates on behalf of the interests of hard at the 21-day period of consideration but, in the the 27 member states and its scrutiny arrangements spirit of partnership, does not challenge the Government’s reflect the specific and unique structure of the EU. wish to retain CRaG. However, it ensures that time is The same applies to the US. The role the US Congress made available, not because the Opposition want to plays in scrutinising international trade agreements is debate these issues, but because the Government do. a product of the constitutional make-up of the United As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, it does not States. I suggest it would be wholly inappropriate for limit ratification in exceptional circumstances. It does the UK, with our own unique constitutional framework, the trick of trying to find a 21-st century model, to import the regime of another country, particularly without tearing up the existing position. Wewill support one where the constitutional circumstances differ so that amendment if the noble Lord chooses to test the markedly. opinion of the House at the end of this debate. We have frequently repeated our commitment to We are not trying to be too radical; we are trying to ensuring a transparent trade policy and we have delivered be fair and reasonable. As the right reverend Prelate on this time and time again. We have made significant the Bishop of St Albans said, we do not want to lag progress in this space. We have listened to concerns behind everyone else on transparency.There is a consensus from parliamentarians and have taken actions to address for change. If we support Amendment 6 and vote them, including putting the Trade and Agriculture through Amendment 12, we will get a long way down Commission tack on to a statutory footing, which will that track. be discussed in the next group of amendments. We have kept Parliament regularly updated on the Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): I would like to negotiations as they have progressed. We have done thank noble Lords for the courteous way in which this this via Written Ministerial Statements to update debate has been conducted. I will begin with Parliament on key milestones and we have held regular, Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Lords, open briefing sessions for all parliamentarians throughout Lord Purvis of Tweed, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the negotiations on our FTAs. We have engaged closely and Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and the right reverend with the International Trade Committee and the Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. During the passage of International Agreements Sub-Committee, including this legislation, I believe there has been a general writing to the chairs of both committees at every key acceptance on all sides of the importance of Parliament’s stage and facilitating private briefings for them with being able to effectively scrutinise trade policy, including Ministers and our chief negotiators. My noble friend our new FTAs with the likes of the US, Australia and Lord Lansley, as a member of the IASC, has seen us in New Zealand. We have consistently ensured that there action on this and has complimented us on it. We is sufficient scope for Parliament to do this. will continue to share confidential treaty text on the The Government have taken a number of important FTAs that are currently under negotiation, and on the steps, and it is pleasing that noble Lords recognise this CPTPP when it comes down the track, with the ITC and have supported us. For example, we have shared and the IAS. We will ensure that they both have time 999 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1000

[LORD GRIMSTONE OF BOSCOBEL] I am afraid that the amendment does exactly that to produce a report on any such concluded agreement because it places restrictions on the ability of the before it is laid before Parliament under the CRaG Government to enter into treaty negotiations and to procedure. ratify treaties. With all due respect to the drafters of I hope noble Lords will also realise and accept that the amendment, it starts by saying one thing and then we have demonstrated this with the Japan agreement. I it goes on to say another. I am grateful to my noble accept absolutely the importance of this, as described friends Lord Lansley and Lady Noakes for also spotting so cogently by the noble and learned Lord, that and pointing it out to your Lordships. Lord Goldsmith. Both of the committees’ reports on Giving Parliament a veto over our negotiating Japan have now been published, with, if I may say, objectives would curtail the royal prerogative, whatever both committees praising the engagement that they the preamble to the proposed new clause says, and have had with my department. The IASC report notes would limit our flexibility to negotiate in the best that interests of the UK. I know that noble Lords are aware that the Constitution Committee of this House “DIT has been a constructive partner in helping to determine the right processes by which parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s recommended in its 2019 report on the scrutiny of new function of negotiating trade deals can be facilitated.” treaties that mandates for treaties should not be subject to parliamentary approval. In addition, the ITC and IASC reports congratulate the Government on their achievement in securing the Ultimately, if Parliament is not content with a trade Japan agreement, noting the warm welcome that it has agreement that we have negotiated, it can—like for the had from witnesses in their inquiries. majority of all other treaties—raise concerns by resolving against ratification under the statutory CRaG procedure. I turn to the devolved Administrations. The Under that, as noble Lords will know well, Parliament Government have always been clear that we want to can delay ratification indefinitely, giving it, in effect, engage meaningfully with them on our trade policy. the power to block ratification. The Government As Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles MS, are committed to a transparent trade policy with recently confirmed in his evidence on 19 November to comprehensive engagement with Parliament. We have the Welsh Affairs Committee, the DIT has listened to already demonstrated this and we will continue to do the devolved Administrations. We have established a so. The Government have moved a long way in developing new ministerial forum on trade and we have used it to comprehensive scrutiny arrangements that are appropriate consult the DAs on all of our trade agreements. The to our constitutional make-up. forum has met three times already this year and will I turn now to Amendment 12 in the name of my meet for a fourth time later this week. I can assure the noble friend Lord Lansley. I thank him for the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and amendment. He and I have already had constructive Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, discussions on the topic, and I think it is fair to say Lord Wigley, that our desire to engage with the devolved that we are in mutual agreement on the importance of Administrations is both deep and sincere, and we will strong parliamentary scrutiny and the transparency of continue to do so.I believe that putting these arrangements our trade deals. into statute would upset this balance. While in practice, theGovernmentengagewiththedevolvedAdministrations On implementing our trade deals, noble Lords will on international trade policy,it is important to remember be aware that it has long been UK practice not to that this has legal status as a reserved matter. We have ratify international agreements until any necessary to take care to preserve this status. implementing legislation has been passed domestically. This is a well-established process that the FCDO has I turn to impact assessments. The Government are followed historically for treaties for centuries in order committed to an inclusive and transparent trade policy. to ensure that the UK will not be in breach of the Scoping assessments are published to assess analytically treaty when it enters into force. The Government have the impacts of new FTAs in advance of negotiations, no intention of deviating from this process in relation and following the conclusion of negotiations currently to our new trade agreements. However, we believe that in train, a full impact assessment will be published putting this on to a statutory footing would be prior to implementation. This will be presented to inappropriate and would deprive and restrict the Parliament, alongside the final treaty text, together Government’s flexibility in the conclusion of our withanexplanatorymemorandumtoaidparliamentarians international trade agreements, as well as curtailing in their scrutiny role. Of course, this is in addition to the treaty-making prerogative. the CRaG procedure. We will also ensure that the I know that my noble friend has expressed concerns impact assessments are independently scrutinised by about the level of detail in the explanatory memorandums the Regulatory Policy Committee. that are laid alongside treaties. I agree with him that In drafting the amendment, I welcome the fact that Parliament should know clearly how the Government the noble Lord has tried to address our point at intend to implement any commitments made in an previous stages of the Bill; namely, that the negotiation FTA and what legislation Parliament will need to pass and making of treaties, including international trade in order to implement it domestically. I would argue agreements, is a function of the Executive held under that, in part, we already do this. For example, in the royal prerogative. However, despite the drafting of paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the subsection (1), that recent Japan agreement, we outline how the agreement “Nothing in this section restricts the power conferred by Her will be implemented in domestic legislation. It includes Majesty’s prerogative to commence, conduct negotiations towards details on how commitments in specific policy areas, and then conclude a trade agreement”, such as tariffs, procurement and technical barriers to 1001 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1002 trade, will be implemented, and where legislation will flexibilities afforded to us under our constitutional need to change. I can say without reservation that I arrangements to ensure a robust scrutiny process. I would be more than happy to explore with my noble repeat the Government’s commitment to continue to friend how we might make this clearer and more ensure that these arrangements remain fit for purpose, useful to parliamentarians. However, I do not believe working in close collaboration with the relevant that this is an issue which is best resolved in legislation. committees. In respect of facilitating debates on FTAs as part of I hope that I have been able to address your Lordships’ CRaG, we have been clear that the Government will concerns adequately. I therefore ask my noble friend facilitate requests for debate on the agreement—including, Lord Lansley not to move his amendment and the of course, those from the relevant Select Committees— noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to withdraw his amendment. with the only caveat being that it is subject to available parliamentary time. As many noble Lords know far Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, I am grateful better than I, it would not be appropriate for the to the Minister for a very thorough response; he will Government to guarantee debating time in the way find out how persuasive I have found him in a moment suggested in this amendment. As I am sure my noble after I draw out two or three points from the debate. I friend with his ministerial experience can appreciate, am grateful to all those who have taken part and, any Minister would like to be able to guarantee debating indeed, for the support that I have received, including time. However, the pandemic and other matters have from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. shown us the need to remain flexible in how we I have been a Member of this House for seven manage precious parliamentary time. years. While the noble Lord was making his remarks, I I assure noble Lords—I said this in Committee and reflected on the fact that if the noble Earl, Lord willingly repeat it now—that it is not the Government’s Caithness, supports a liberal amendment and the noble intention to shy away from scrutiny. I believe that Lord, Lord Lansley, persuades a Green Peer, it is scrutiny gives us better free trade agreements; the pretty evident that there is some cross-party backing. Government want these agreements to be examined by We can rely on the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to parliamentarians and effectively scrutinised. I hope be consistent in her position. I am grateful to her. She that noble Lords do not mind my saying that the always makes me think in these debates, even though Government’s practical record on this has been good. she does not often persuade me. I have a copy of the Requests for debates have been met, most recently on Written Ministerial Statement, which I can share with our FTA with Japan, which was debated in your her if she likes; I am afraid that it is rather heavily Lordships’ House on 26 November. I am very pleased annotated, which will not surprise her. I think the that 31 speakers participated in that debate, which point that she made was ably addressed by the noble followed on from the six earlier debates on our continuity Earl. Yes, these are our first trade negotiations in agreements that we facilitated. I hope that these will be 50 years, but almost by definition, as the noble Earl the first of many debates on our forthcoming agreements and the noble Baroness indicated, these agreements that the Government will facilitate, where—I repeat— are very different in nature from those of 50 years ago. parliamentary time allows. They are primarily concerned with non-tariff measures This debate has allowed me to outline the extensive rather than tariff measures. steps that the Government have taken to ensure that I agree with the Minister that our approach must Parliament has an effective scrutiny role in the suit our own unique constitutional arrangements. With constitutional context of the UK. This includes our regard to that, the Minister should reflect that the long-standing commitments to provide comprehensive prerogative power is not a static thing as part of those information to Parliament in advance of starting constitutional arrangements. It has been demonstrated negotiations—beyond what many other partner countries that there have been changes in the use of that prerogative undertake—along with conducting thorough engagement power over many years. It used to be a prerogative throughout negotiations. In addition, we have further power that Parliament had no say in the deployment enhanced arrangements at the end of negotiations. On of troops, for example; this is now recognised to be this point, I thank noble Lords for helping us to shape rather different. I assure the Minister as the drafter of these arrangements; I am sure that we will continue to this amendment that amendments do not get tabled in shape and improve them as we go forward. Noble this House without the beady eye of the Public Bill Lords have helped to improve the process of FTA Office ensuring that one clause does not contradict scrutiny and, frankly, persuaded the Government to another.So I believe in the robustness of this amendment, bring forward their amendments on the Trade and but I am grateful for his advice. Agriculture Commission. The EU International If I were arguing that, if Parliament is not content Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House with the Trade Bill, it can raise any concerns it may persuaded the Government to ensure that it is given have over a trade deal by resolving against ratification time ahead of the start of the CRaG period to produce and delaying any implementing legislation indefinitely, a report on the agreement. This will ensure that your I think that the noble Baroness would be frustrated Lordships are better informed and able to scrutinise with me for proposing such an argument. What would our new agreements more effectively. it say if a sovereign entity—the sovereign Government— As many noble Lords have expressed over the course signed an agreement then Parliament used a mechanism of this Bill, this is the first time in nearly 50 years that to delay the implementing legislation indefinitely? That the UK has undertaken trade negotiations; I hope that would massively undermine the sovereignty of the noble Lords recognise that my officials are not doing a Government that had signed an international bad job of it. I believe that we should utilise the agreement—yet that is the Government’s position in 1003 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1004

[LORD PURVIS OF TWEED] was a government amendment in a government Act the Written Ministerial Statement; I quoted from it. It that is now being amended for the Trade and Agriculture is not a fit-for-purpose mechanism; it is not an appropriate Commission. If that is not a restriction on the ability way of considering how we approve trade agreements. of Parliament to lay proposals, then I do not know Secondly, I refer to the point made by the noble what is. Lord, Lord Lansley. These procedures are not very I hope the Minister knows that I respect him and good; I would love him to have a right of reply to the listen to him. However,I do not believe that he sufficiently Minister too. I will not endeavour to speak for him, addressed the wide concerns from across the House, nor would he want me to, but the noble Lord’squestion— including the main one, which is the necessity of with regard to the amendment—about the ability of bringing the processes up to date. Yes, it is the case Parliament to make a decision before the signature is that we are negotiating for the first time in 50 years. deliberate. In trade agreements, we know that there is This is our opportunity as a House to say to the a finalisation process and then, often, an initialling Government how we believe we should frame the next process. The initialled text will then usually go to the 50 years of negotiating these—as the noble Earl, Parliament before there is full signature by the sovereign Lord Caithness, said—complex and deep agreements. country. It is no accident that, at that stage, in Japan, On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House. which went through the process on 24 November, the 5.02 pm law then authorised the Japanese Government to put their formal signature on the agreement. If there are Division conducted remotely on Amendment 6 problems, the time to highlight them is not as we have Contents 308; Not-Contents 261. it—after the event, where a treaty has basically been made—after which we have the power only to delay Amendment 6 agreed. the implementation. The right time is at the time of Division No. 2 signing. This allows a judgment to be made to avoid problems down the line if there is still a great deal of CONTENTS unease with the agreement that has been signed. Aberdare, L. Butler-Sloss, B. This brings me to my last point. I am glad that the Addington, L. Caithness, E. Minister referenced the next group. One of the points Adonis, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Alderdice, L. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. that he was at pains to make—indeed the noble Lord, Allan of Hallam, L. Campbell of Surbiton, B. Lord Lansley,made a slight reference to this—concerned Alli, L. Campbell-Savours, L. whether we are now putting a great deal of restriction Alton of Liverpool, L. Canterbury, Abp. on this power. As I mentioned before, the prerogative Amos, B. Carlile of Berriew, L. power has not been set in stone over the years, nor Anderson of Ipswich, L. Carter of Coles, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Cashman, L. have the restrictions on any British Government over Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Chakrabarti, B. how they conduct or conclude negotiations. No British Ashton of Upholland, B. Chandos, V. Government would go into any negotiations that would Bach, L. Chidgey, L. breach human rights agreements—the ECHR, for Bakewell of Hardington Clancarty, E. example. There are international obligations that we Mandeville, B. Clark of Calton, B. Barker, B. Clark of Kilwinning, B. are bound to accept. We are a sovereign Parliament Bassam of Brighton, L. Clark of Windermere, L. and the prerogative power, as the Minister would Beith, L. Clement-Jones, L. suggest, should be completely unfettered. Well, there Benjamin, B. Cohen of Pimlico, B. is quite a high level of fettering about that. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Collins of Highbury, L. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Colville of Culross, V. 5 pm Berkeley, L. Cooper of Windrush, L. Best, L. Corston, B. We saw this in the European negotiations, both Bichard, L. Cotter, L. with the Theresa May Government and the Boris Billingham, B. Coussins, B. Johnson Government. Both published draft texts which Blackstone, B. Crawley, B. Blower, B. Crisp, L. they said they would stick to, or would ask the House Blunkett, L. Cunningham of Felling, L. of Commons to resolve on negotiation objectives for Boateng, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. that. This is not, therefore, an unusual set of practices. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Davidson of Glen Clova, L. When it comes to restrictions—this is a point made B. Davies of Brixton, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Davies of Stamford, L. both by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the Bowness, L. Desai, L. noble Lord, Lord Lansley—the question is whether Boycott, B. Dholakia, L. the elements of my amendment that put requirements Bradley, L. Donaghy, B. on the Government both to consult Parliament and to Bradshaw, L. Donoughue, L. present reports are, in effect, a restriction on the use of Bragg, L. Doocey, B. Brennan, L. Drake, B. that prerogative power. If that is the case, then both Brinton, B. D’Souza, B. should be opposing government Amendment 34 in the Broers, L. Dubs, L. next group, because that amendment sets the criteria Brown of Cambridge, B. Eatwell, L. on a report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission Browne of Ladyton, L. Elder, L. to satisfy Section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020 that Bruce of Bennachie, L. Evans of Watford, L. just passed. I remind noble Lords that Section 42 Bryan of Partick, B. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Bull, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. placed a condition on Governments, before a treaty Burnett, L. Featherstone, B. could be laid under the CRaG Act, that they make a Burt of Solihull, B. Filkin, L. statement of complying with domestic standards. That Butler of Brockwell, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. 1005 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1006

Foster of Bath, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Smith of Basildon, B. Truscott, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Fox, L. Mallalieu, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Turnberg, L. Freyberg, L. Manchester, Bp. Smith of Newnham, B. Tyler of Enfield, B. Gale, B. Mandelson, L. Snape, L. Tyler, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Somerset, D. Uddin, B. German, L. L. St Albans, Bp. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Giddens, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Stephen, L. Verjee, L. Glasman, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Stern of Brentford, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Goddard of Stockport, L. Maxton, L. Stern, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Golding, B. McAvoy, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Goldsmith, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Stone of Blackheath, L. Walmsley, B. Goudie, B. L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Grantchester, L. McDonagh, B. Storey, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Greaves, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Strasburger, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Stunell, L. Watts, L. Grender, B. McNally, L. Suttie, B. Waverley, V. Grey-Thompson, B. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Taverne, L. Wheatcroft, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Meacher, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Wheeler, B. Grocott, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Whitaker, B. Hain, L. B. Teverson, L. Whitty, L. Hamwee, B. Mitchell, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Wigley, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Monks, L. Thomas of Winchester, B. Wilcox of Newport, B. Hanworth, V. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Thornhill, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Morgan, L. Thornton, B. Wills, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Thurso, V. Wood of Anfield, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Tonge, B. Woodley, L. Haskel, L. Murphy, B. Tope, L. Worthington, B. Haughey, L. Neuberger, B. Touhig, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Haworth, L. Newby, L. Trees, L. Young of Hornsey, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. Northover, B. Triesman, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Hayman, B. Nye, B. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Oates, L. NOT CONTENTS Healy of Primrose Hill, B. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Hendy, L. Osamor, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Carrington of Fulham, L. Henig, B. Paddick, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Carrington, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Altmann, B. Cathcart, E. Hollick, L. Pannick, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Cavendish of Furness, L. Hollins, B. Parekh, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Chadlington, L. Hope of Craighead, L. Parminter, B. Arran, E. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Ashton of Hyde, L. Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Hoyle, L. Patel, L. Astor of Hever, L. Choudrey, L. Humphreys, B. Pinnock, B. Baker of Dorking, L. Colgrain, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Pitkeathley, B. Balfe, L. Colwyn, L. Hussain, L. Prashar, B. Barran, B. Cork and Orrery, E. Hussein-Ece, B. Prescott, L. Barwell, L. Cormack, L. Hutton of Furness, L. Primarolo, B. Bates, L. Courtown, E. Inglewood, L. Prosser, B. Bellingham, L. Couttie, B. Janke, B. Purvis of Tweed, L. Berridge, B. Craig of Radley, L. Janvrin, L. Puttnam, L. Bertin, B. Craigavon, V. Jay of Ewelme, L. Quin, B. Bethell, L. Crathorne, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Bhatia, L. Cromwell, L. Jolly, B. Ramsbotham, L. Bird, L. Cumberlege, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Randerson, B. Black of Brentwood, L. Dannatt, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Razzall, L. Blackwell, L. Davies of Gower, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Rebuck, B. Blackwood of North Oxford, De Mauley, L. Jones, L. Redesdale, L. B. Deech, B. Jordan, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Blencathra, L. Deighton, L. Judd, L. Reid of Cardowan, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Dixon-Smith, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Rennard, L. Waldrist, B. Dobbs, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Ricketts, L. Borwick, L. Dodds of Duncairn, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Duncan of Springbank, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Dundee, E. Kerslake, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Dunlop, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Rooker, L. Brady, B. Eames, L. Kramer, B. Rosser, L. Bridgeman, V. Eaton, B. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Rowlands, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Lea of Crondall, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Brougham and Vaux, L. Eccles, V. Lennie, L. Salisbury, Bp. Brown of Eaton-under- Empey, L. Levy, L. Sawyer, L. Heywood, L. Erroll, E. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Browne of Belmont, L. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Liddle, L. Scriven, L. Browning, B. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Lipsey, L. Shafik, B. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Falkner of Margravine, B. Lister of Burtersett, B. Sharkey, L. L. Fall, B. Lisvane, L. Sheehan, B. Buscombe, B. Farmer, L. Loomba, L. Sherlock, B. Caine, L. Faulks, L. Low of Dalston, L. Shipley, L. Callanan, L. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Ludford, B. Sikka, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Field of Birkenhead, L. 1007 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1008

Fink, L. Marlesford, L. Thurlow, L. Warsi, B. Finkelstein, L. Maude of Horsham, L. Trefgarne, L. Wasserman, L. Finn, B. Mawson, L. Trenchard, V. Wei, L. Fleet, B. McColl of Dulwich, L. Trevethin and Oaksey, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Flight, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and True, L. Whitby, L. Tugendhat, L. Fookes, B. Cookstown, L. Willetts, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Ullswater, V. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Fox of Buckley, B. McLoughlin, L. Woolf, L. Framlingham, L. Mendoza, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Wyld, B. Fraser of Corriegarth, L. Meyer, B. Verma, B. Freud, L. Montrose, D. Wakeham, L. Young of Cookham, L. Fullbrook, B. Morgan of Cotes, B. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Young of Graffham, L. Gadhia, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Walney, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Morrissey, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Morrow, L. 5.16 pm Garnier, L. Moylan, L. Geddes, L. Moynihan, L. The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) Glenarthur, L. Naseby, L. (Lab): We now come to the group beginning with Glendonbrook, L. Nash, L. Gold, L. Neville-Jones, B. Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that Members Goldie, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. other than the mover and the Minister may speak only Goldsmith of Richmond Newlove, B. once and that short questions of elucidation are Park, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything Goodlad, L. B. else in the group to a Division should make that clear Grade of Yarmouth, L. Noakes, B. in the debate. Greenhalgh, L. Norton of Louth, L. Greenway, L. O’Loan, B. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Hailsham, V. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Amendment 7 Hamilton of Epsom, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L. Moved by Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Hammond of Runnymede, L. Penn, B. Haselhurst, L. Pickles, L. 7: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— Hay of Ballyore, L. Pidding, B. “Trade and Agriculture Commission Hayward, L. Polak, L. Henley, L. Popat, L. (1) A body corporate called the Trade and Agriculture Herbert of South Downs, L. Powell of Bayswater, L. Commission (“TAC”) is established. Hill of Oareford, L. Price, L. (2) The TAC must establish criteria for maintaining standards Hodgson of Abinger, B. Rana, L. equivalent to standards applied within the United Kingdom Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Randall of Uxbridge, L. at the time of import for goods imported under a trade L. Ravensdale, L. agreement between the United Kingdom and any other Hoey, B. Reay, L. state. Hogg, B. Redfern, B. Holmes of Richmond, L. Ribeiro, L. (3) When the Secretary of State is undertaking negotiations Hooper, B. Risby, L. for an international trade agreement on behalf of the Horam, L. Robathan, L. United Kingdom with another state, the Secretary of Howard of Lympne, L. Rogan, L. State must consider any advice given by the TAC for the Howard of Rising, L. Rose of Monewden, L. purposes of ensuring that the international trade agreement Howe, E. Rotherwick, L. does not reduce or compromise standards. Howell of Guildford, L. Rowe-Beddoe, L. (4) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an Hunt of Wirral, L. Saatchi, L. international trade agreement before Parliament under James of Blackheath, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Jenkin of Kennington, B. Sarfraz, L. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Sassoon, L. Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation Jopling, L. Sater, B. of goods into the United Kingdom unless Conditions A, Kakkar, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. B and C have been met. Keen of Elie, L. Seccombe, B. (5) Condition A is that the TAC has prepared a report Kilclooney, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. assessing the extent to which the international trade King of Bridgwater, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. agreement is likely to reduce the ability of the United Kirkham, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Kingdom to maintain standards. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Sheikh, L. Laming, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. (6) Condition B is that a Minister of the Crown has laid the Lamont of Lerwick, L. Shields, B. report before Parliament. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Shinkwin, L. (7) Condition C is that each House of Parliament has Lang of Monkton, L. Shrewsbury, E. agreed a motion, moved in accordance with subsection Lansley, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. (8) by a Minister of the Crown, that the international Leigh of Hurley, L. St John of Bletso, L. trade agreement does not diminish standards within the Lexden, L. Stedman-Scott, B. meaning of this section. Lilley, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Lindsay, E. Stewart of Dirleton, L. (8) So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must Lingfield, L. Stirrup, L. make arrangements for the motion mentioned in Liverpool, E. Stowell of Beeston, B. subsection (7) to be debated and voted on by each House Lothian, M. Strathclyde, L. of Parliament within a period of 42 days beginning with Lucas, L. Stroud, B. the day on which the report was laid under subsection Mackay of Clashfern, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. (6). Mancroft, L. Sugg, B. (9) In this section, “standards” means standards relating Mann, L. Suri, L. to— Manzoor, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Marland, L. Tebbit, L. (a) animal welfare, 1009 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1010

(b) protection of the environment, which we have called “CRAG” throughout these (c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, proceedings— (d) plant health, and “that contains provisions relating to the importation of goods” (e) employment and human rights. unless certain criteria have been met. We set out those (10) Schedule (The Trade and Agriculture Commission) criteria in subsections (5), (6) and (7): first, makes further provision about the TAC.” “that the TAC has prepared a report assessing the extent to which the international trade agreement is likely to reduce the ability of the United Kingdom to maintain” Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 I will speak also to its own standards; secondly, Amendment 44 and to the government amendments “that a Minister of the Crown has laid the report before Parliament” in this group. I take this opportunity to thank the and, thirdly, Minister, my noble friend Lord Grimstone, for reaching “that each House of Parliament has agreed a motion, moved in out to those of us with an interest in this group of accordance with subsection (8) … that the international trade amendments with the meeting that was held between agreement does not diminish standards within the meaning of” Committee stage and today, and for coming forward subsection (8), where we state that that Motion should with the government amendments in his name. “be debated and voted on by each House of Parliament within a At that meeting, there were a number of potential period of 42 days beginning with the day on which the report was deficiencies in the anticipated amendments to the Trade laid”. Bill, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Grimstone, This builds on the argument that we have had on the that we now have before us today. In particular, a preceding Amendment 6 and subsequent amendments number of us expressed concern about the absence of in this group. In my view, the period of 21 days is labour and human rights standards being upheld—as simply not enough time to take these arguments into was contained in the original Fairhead amendment, consideration, and a period of up to 42 days—it need now superseded by Amendment 6. We also expressed not take the whole of that—would be more appropriate. concern about the fact that the independence of the We set out in subsection (9) what the standards Trade and Agriculture Commission still seemed to be mean. In addition to in doubt as, at the time, there was no reference to “animal welfare … protection of the environment … food safety, resources,staffing, offices,et cetera, and new appointments hygiene and traceability … plant health”, would need to be made, as the current members of the Trade and Agriculture Commission were initially we add, in paragraph (e), what I know is of considerable appointed for a period of six months and are unpaid, importance to a number of noble Lords: “employment as I understand it. We were also concerned about the and human rights.” I do not believe that those appear extent to which Parliament would have a role in anywhere else. I would be interested to know the scrutinising these appointments and what form that extent to which my noble friend is prepared to look at scrutiny would take. There was also, again, a general employment and human rights, as they are generally lack of understanding about the exact form of scrutiny, understood to be terms and standards that are met. I and about the timing of the report from the Trade and think it was involved in previous negotiations and Agriculture Commission, and further reports of individual possibly also in the Fairhead amendment. trade deals as negotiated, that Parliament would receive The main thrust of Amendment 44 goes to the and what the procedure was for looking at that. point that I raised earlier about the independence of Taking these points in turn, I will first go through the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It is very my Amendments 7 and 44. As I say, I am grateful to similar to, but goes further than, that in the name of my noble friend for coming forward with his amendments, my noble friend Lord Grimstone: we suggest that we which I believe will, for the most part, resolve many of take the standard wording here, that: my concerns. It was remiss of me not to thank the “The TAC is not to be regarded … as the servant or agent of noble Baronesses, Lady Henig, Lady Jones of the Crown” Moulsecoomb and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, for and that its property is also not to be considered as their support for Amendments 7 and 44, and I take such, but add that: this opportunity to do so—I am most grateful to “The TAC is to consist of … a Chair appointed by the them. Secretary of State … other non-executive members appointed by The thrust of Amendment 7 is that the Trade and the Secretary of State … a chief executive appointed by the Chair Agriculture Commission with the approval of the Secretary of State or, if the first Chair has not been appointed, by the Secretary of State”. “must establish criteria for maintaining standards equivalent to standards applied within the United Kingdom at the time of At this stage I have a question for my noble friend import for goods imported under a trade agreement between the the Minister about both Amendment 44 and his United Kingdom and any other state … When the Secretary of government amendment, which we shall come on to. State is undertaking negotiations for an international trade agreement … Is it his understanding—certainly it would be our with another state, the Secretary of State must consider any wish, and my fervent desire—that all these future advice given by the TAC for the purposes of ensuring that the international trade agreement does not reduce or compromise appointments will follow the usual procedures where standards.” they have a pre-appointment hearing, particularly for In subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, we set an incoming chair of the Trade and Agriculture out that: Commission? It may be the present chairman; indeed, “AMinister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international it is my current hope that the present chairman of the trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the commission will be reappointed but, as this will be a Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”— statutory body in future, under this group of amendments 1011 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1012

[BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING] the passage of this Bill and indeed the Agriculture they would be subject to the pre-appointment hearings Act, so I thank the Minister warmly for that. I presume by the relevant Select Committee. I hope the Minister that government Amendment 50 is consequential in will confirm that that is his understanding as well. that regard, so those two amendments are absolutely We then set out the terms of appointment and welcome and I am most grateful to him. tenure of members. I understand that we took this Now I would like to pause and turn to government from previous such provisions, not least for the Trade Amendment 36. It potentially effectively repeals the Remedies Authority, which is also part and parcel of very existence of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, this Act. So we do not mean to be prescriptive; we are not just as set out in the provisions that we are literally lifting, for shorthand purposes, these provisions debating in this group of amendments as part of the that exist elsewhere and are tried, tested and understood. Trade Bill before us today but, as the Member’s I hope the Minister will understand the basis on which explanatory statement says: we have drafted Amendments 7 and 44. “This amendment would empower the Secretary of State to I turn to the amendments that the Minister has repeal provision relating to the Trade and Agriculture Commission presented and will shortly move today. He will be if the Secretary of State’s duty to seek its advice under the pleased to hear that I like government Amendment 31 Agriculture Act 2020 is repealed.” but, as I indicated earlier, there are a number of 5.30 pm omissions from what is generally understood. The obvious one is employment and human rights, but I I may be misinterpreting and misconstruing this believe that food safety, hygiene and traceability are amendment but, if I take it at face value, I slightly fear also very important. That has been covered in debates that it makes a mockery of the government amendments in this House and in the other place. and others in this group in my name and those of other noble Lords. I press my noble friend: what on Government Amendment 34 seems to cover a lot of earth is the meaning of government Amendment 36? the ground that is in Amendments 7 and 44, as previously We are coalescing around the amendments which my discussed. I ask for clarification on subsection (2), noble friend has brought before the House today, but which inserts the words: they are spoiled by the fact that, as I understand it, a “In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must”, statutory instrument could be brought forward. We and then goes on to say, know that that does not carry the same level of scrutiny “except insofar as they relate to human life or health”. as primary legislation. By the wave of a statutory There is a general understanding regarding this. I instrument, the Trade and Agriculture Commission, know that a previous amendment was carried in the its role, its function, and its advisory commitment, name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that failed could be removed. What does Amendment 36 mean? to mention the original Article 36 provisions of the I look forward to receiving the Minister’s responses. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, For the moment, I beg to move Amendment 7. which refer to public health and safety, although I forget the actual wording. I seek clarification that that Lord Grantchester (Lab): I thank the noble Baroness, is in fact what the Minister is referring to here. Lady McIntosh, for her introduction to this group of Obviously, I am delighted that, under subsections (3) amendments on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. and (4), there will be a report of advice received, which We very much see this as unfinished business from the I presume will be laid. What appears to be missing Agriculture Bill, a not entirely satisfactory outcome to here is whether that report will be debated. Does the the issue of food standards. A proper recognition of Minister understand that to be the case, or is it not the the maintenance of the United Kingdom’sfood standards Government’s intention that it would be debated? should have been inserted in statute through that Bill Government Amendment 35 shares many of the rather than just having it as a manifesto commitment. provisions that we have set out in Amendment 44, However useful as a mechanism, the TAC cannot giving a degree of independence that is most welcome, block a trade deal that may lead to a lowering of and I thank the Minister for tabling that amendment. standards. We see this as not entirely good enough, yet Again, if I may seek clarification, in the new clause the Government are now agreeing that they should, inserted by Amendment 35, subsection (1) is fairly and could, have brought this body into existence at standard, but subsection (2), which mentions any time, and they are doing it more proactively. With “staff, accommodation, equipment or other facilities”, the outcome of the statutory enshrinement of a TAC, omits any mention of resources, and I wonder if that together with added improvements through other is intentional. That omission has to be seen together amendments, we can understand and agree that the with that in subsection (3), which says: non-regression of standards could be said to have “The Secretary of State may pay, or make provision for been delivered. However, anxieties exist about the paying, expenses to any member of the TAC in connection with Government’s full commitment to the Trade and the preparation of advice”. Agriculture Commission. As a method to monitor Again, that does not actually say if there is a limit to food standards and trade deals it is very precarious, the resources or the extent to which those provisions but there are many crossovers and references to other will extend. Clarification there would be most helpful. amendments and we concede that, in conjunction with Then we come to government Amendments 49 and those, this is a satisfactory way to proceed at the 50. I welcome the fact that Amendment 49 puts the moment. Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory Amendment 7, paired with Amendment 44 which footing; that is something that many of us have held introduces a new schedule, in the name of the noble dear and which I have specifically requested during Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and other noble Lords, has 1013 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1014 many similarities to the discussions in debates during better recognition to its work and the importance that the passage of the Agriculture Bill. If the noble Baroness the greatest percentage of the UK’s population places will forgive me, the amendment would pre-empt the on food standards being maintained, as well as on Government’s amendments, to which I will give more plant health, the environment and animal welfare. detailed attention, as the Government have already We also have severe reservations about the signalled that they will agree to put the TAC on a Government’sAmendment 36, which repeals the advisory statutory basis in this Bill. On that basis, I will examine body barely three years after its enactment. That their proposals. As the noble Baroness has outlined, amendment proposes that the TAC’s provision, set up the Government’s amendments are far from ideal, in in primary statute, could then be repealed or severely many respects, compared to hers. altered by secondary statutory order only, as soon as Amendment 31 sets up the TAC to be an expert its third anniversary. This would diminish the TAC body, with which we are in agreement, but it is rather and its prime process—being part of the parliamentary silent on precise membership recommendations. Will scrutiny of Trade Bills—which we thought the the Minister outline, in his response to these amendments, Government had agreed. It hardly allows the Trade how far this statutory body will reflect what already and Agriculture Commission to consider all the new exists in its present, rather weak, form, especially major trade deals which the Government may wish to regarding membership? During the passage of the enact, in addition to the rollover deals that the UK is Agriculture Bill, many noble Lords thought that that inheriting through its previous membership of the membership should have been extended to contain EU. It is still unknown when, and at what speed, new consumer interests as well as further food and nutrition international trade agreements with America and Australia interests. could come through. Indeed, the Government could Amendment 32 mirrors further discussions on the time those negotiations to come to fruition exactly as Agriculture Bill in that full and precise considerations they were disbanding the TAC. That would be a should be shared with the devolved Administrations. tremendous mistake. The Minister may be able to give fulsome answers to Having proposed the creation of the TAC on a this in his response to the previous amendment on statutory basis, it should now be allowed to gain how the present TAC is set up. We would rather experience and expertise, and to be taken seriously in answer the question of membership and its extension that role. It should be able to undertake further research though Amendment 33, in the name of my noble and investigations into agricultural and trade matters friend Lord Stevenson. This extends the possibility of in addition to providing momentary comments on trade commissions being set up for any other industries each trade deal that the Government may wish it to as may become apparent and necessary through other advise on. Will the Minister outline how the Government trade deals which the Government may wish to enter intend the TAC to function in this regard? into. We do not necessarily see that the agriculture We have resisted further amendments to the industry should be unique in having its own carve-out Government’s clauses, especially to the period of only in appreciation of the effect on it of trade Bills. I three years before it could be disbanded, and reserve would very much welcome the Minister’s response to the option of bringing further amendments, following that. There could well be opportunities and circumstances any replies that the Minister may provide, at Third in future trade deals where there may be a severe Reading. It is crucial, as the UK begins to undertake imbalance in their outcome on different industries, its own trade policy, for these matters to be dealt with with one industry feeling more imperilled than another appropriately and robustly for many years to come. by the measures brought about by a future trade Bill. We would not wish a balance of benefits for one Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD): industry to played against the detriment of another’s My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, sacrifice. Lord Grantchester.I will speak briefly to Amendment 32. I turn to further specifics in the Government’s There was a great deal of discussion during the proposals. Our concerns begin to mount with passage of the Agriculture Bill on the importance of Amendment 34, on the commission’s advisory functions. the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. All This proposes an immediate restriction to the process, who took part will be relieved that the Government brought in by amendments to the Agriculture Bill, have decided to put the TAC on a formal footing, as regarding the functions of the Trade and Agriculture set out in government Amendment 31. The NFU Commission. We find it rather alarming that, when lobbied heavily for this, was disappointed that the the Agriculture Minister was answering for the whole measure was not included in the Agriculture Bill but, Government during the passage of the Agriculture like others, is pleased to see it added to the Trade Bill. Bill, he was very much alive to the aspect of human I have added my name to Amendment 32, from the health, and the implication for that of food, yet in noble Lord, Lord Purvis, as it is essential that the another Bill, barely a month later, a Minister from devolved Administrations have the opportunity to another department wishes to contradict that. comment on proposed members of the TAC. It is also However, I am glad to see that, through those vital that those who have the expertise to ensure that discussions, Amendment 34 now allows the Trade and the TAC makes informed decisions have a seat on the Agriculture Commission to report directly to Parliament, commission. While the list of areas of expertise in independent of the process which the Government government Amendment 31 does not include the bodies had previously been reluctant to stray from, by making that will provide that expertise, it is implicit that they the TAC report only through the Trade Committees of will represent the views of animal and plant safety the Commons and your Lordships’ House. This gives experts and the interests of the farming community. 1015 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1016

[BARONESS BAKEWELL OF HARDINGTON MANDEVILLE] Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that the appointment of In addition to these very welcome changes, the commission members should be subject to parliamentary devolved Administrations must have the opportunity scrutiny and approval. to comment. If they cannot respond within the timeframe There will be many important roles for this new given—one month—the Secretary of State may proceed commission. One will clearly be to give advice on the with appointments. This is a reasonable timeframe best way to uphold existing British food and animal and should not hold up appointments to, and operation welfare standards and to look at the protection of of, the TAC. environmental and plant health. Another, I have no I and some of my colleagues are engaged in reviewing doubt, will be to act as an important champion of a number of statutory instruments from Defra, to British agriculture, which would be very welcome. If it ensure that legislation operates effectively after 1 January is possible for the commission to extend its scope to 2021. It is clear from this legislation that there are very look at human rights and employment issues, I would differing views and methods of operating among the welcome that. devolved Administrations, not least those affected by Another role for the commission would be to consider the Northern Ireland protocol. There is little point in and report on the impact of pending trade deals, appointing people to the TAC if none of them has which are likely to contain provisions put forward by the knowledge or ability to represent the views of the trade competitors looking to access British markets devolved Administrations, especially when there are and to undercut British product and food standards. many instances of legislation on animal and crop One of the first agreements that members of this farming differing between them. This is an important commission will need to consider carefully is the CPTPP, amendment that I hope the Minister will agree to. to which the Government have already announced Lastly, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, they wish to accede. That would raise significant issues Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about government about food and agriculture standards, and about Amendment 36, on repealing the Trade and Agriculture regulations, which would differ considerably from those Commission. This is extremely worrying and undermines by which farmers, manufacturers and traders are currently all previous discussions about the commission, both in bound. this Bill and in the Agriculture Bill, and I look forward That is why it is so important that the members of to reassurance on this point from the Minister. this commission are highly respected and well-regarded experts in their fields: their advice could impact heavily 5.45 pm on the future livelihoods and businesses of large numbers of people in many sectors of our economy. Their Baroness Henig (Lab): My Lords, I am very pleased reports on potential trade deals should be of value not to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of just to the Minister but to Parliament too, in the form, Hardington Mandeville. I will speak to Amendments 7 as we have heard, of committees in the Lords and and 44, and in doing so I welcome government Commons whose duties it is to scrutinise deals. The Amendments 31 and 34 in this group. I and other noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, mentioned this, I think, co-signatories have been urging the Government to in an earlier debate. move in this direction for a considerable time, and I There is a wider role, that urgently needs to be am very pleased to see this commitment to the played, to which I hope that members of this new establishment of a permanent Trade and Agriculture commission might be able to contribute significantly, Commission. namely to outline to the British public what the Like previous speakers, I find Amendment 36 rather Government’s trade strategy is. Is it to do deals with concerning. Can the Minister explain why it is included? any willing partner? Are there preferred options, and It rather casts a large shadow over the Government’s if so on what basis are they preferred? Why do we seek intentions in this area, and I look forward to hearing to join CPTPP, with its distinct set of trade regulations, what the rationale is for this clause. while wanting to have nothing to do with European Leaving aside Amendment 36, the Government’s regulations? Are we happy to conclude a trade deal new clauses are a tentative step forward in establishing with China? I got no answer to that question when I the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It is, however, raised it some weeks ago. only a first step. What needs to follow is for the In addition to articulating a trade strategy, perhaps commission to establish itself as a credible body in this commission could also help to clarify which sections terms of its membership, its leadership credentials and of British commerce and agriculture we are seeking to the impartiality and quality of its advice. I hope that prioritise in trade deals. Which sectors will be deemed the Minister does not mind me commenting that, thus less important? What will be the core principles of far, too many individuals appointed to trade positions British trade policy? They are, at present, difficult to by the Department for International Trade are as discern. It seems that safeguarding jobs in fishing— likely to be chums and cronies of Ministers, or former relatively few though they are—is at the moment Conservative politicians looking for a cosy berth, as to considered more important than jobs in the automobile be independent and well-respected specialists on trade or chemicals industry or in agriculture. Those selling and agricultural issues. fish to Europe seem to be prioritised above those This new body will only be successful to the extent selling lamb to Europe. Does this make commercial that those appointed to it have, between them, a wide and economic sense? These are the sort of issues and range of expertise and are well regarded in their fields choices our new commission members will need to for fully understanding the relevant issues in a non-partisan look at as a matter of urgency. After all, a new start way. I agree, therefore, with the noble Baroness, requires a clear strategy that we can all get behind and 1017 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1018 support. Mobilising energies and support on a wide Amendment 7 provides 42 days for parliamentary basis behind our trade strategies will be crucial to scrutiny, which is better because it allows adequate success in this area. time for that scrutiny to take place. A new schedule I welcome most of the Government’s amendments outlined in Amendment 44 provides for a Trade and in this group as far as they go, but I strongly hope that Agriculture Commission with greater independence to the new Trade and Agriculture Commission will be link in with the whole agricultural area. We should able to help in articulating a set of coherent trade and always remember that those involved in the farming agricultural priorities that we in Parliament, and the industry need this independent body to advise on wider public, will be happy to support. trade matters, agricultural and food standards, and environmental standards. Like other noble Lords, I Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]: My Lords, would like to see references, and hope the Minister it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, could provide us with some detail about the need for and to hear not only her very cogent arguments but food safety, as well as for employment and human also her questions. I do hope the Minister will answer rights. Those are equally important requirements. them, particularly on trade with China. I support Amendments 7 and 44 in the name of the In submissions that we have received over the last noble Baroness,Lady McIntosh. It is obvious immediately, few days, Greener UK has lobbied along with the from the way she laid things out at the very beginning, farming organisations for the Trade and Agriculture that the Government have done a little but not enough. Commission. Given that the UK’s food standards are It is a pleasure for me to speak in this group and have a high on the negotiating priorities of many of our tiny part in the Government’s compromise amendments. prospective trading partners, stakeholder input and Although they are welcome, they just do not do the scrutiny of trade deals in relation to agri-food standards, job. Why do they not guarantee the commission its it is important that the UK delivers the public’sexpectation independence? The weakness is exposed when compared to maintain high standards. It has been recognised with the non-government amendments in this group. that the Government have taken a step in the right While I would like to call a win a win, I do not think direction by putting the Trade and Agriculture we really have a win here. I am worried that this Commission on a statutory footing through the various welcome but small compromise will actually create government amendments, but again I question nothing more than a talking shop, which can simply Amendment 36. I thank the Minister for the meeting be ignored by the Government. he had, on a cross-party basis, with noble Lords on the The Government have put the Trade and Agriculture various issues to do with the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, with Amendments 49 Commission, but I believe that the Government could and 50, given it a degree of permanency and have even go a little further. Perhaps the Minister could specify if seemed to incorporate what we were pushing for in there are any additional details to be provided at that it should have its own staff and facilities, but then Third Reading. The new schedule proposed in our government Amendment 36 throws all that out. A Amendment 44 underpins the need for the independence Secretary of State can ditch the whole thing with a of the TAC. statutory instrument. How is that sticking to a promise Will the Minister spell out how the Trade and about making this a body that can properly do the Agriculture Commission will be required to produce job? an annual report with recommendations on how to I hope that the Minister will think again before improve food import standards and how to incorporate Third Reading, so that we do not have to compromise changes in domestic standards into existing and future endlessly with a body that is too feeble and inconsequential trade deals? How will the Secretary of State be required to do the job. to take all these recommendations into account when setting trade negotiating objectives, and how will the Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]: My Government issue a response to the recommendations? Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Will the Minister provide some assurances in that Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am a signatory to regard and will he be bringing something forward at Amendments 7 and 44, and I congratulate the noble Third Reading? Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her very accurate, extensive and comprehensive exposition of We also note that the TAC’s scope in the government those amendments, as well as her critique of the amendment is limited to agricultural goods and does government amendments in this group.While we welcome not address wider scrutiny of regulations and standards the establishment of the Trade and Agriculture pertaining to other goods and services that may be Commission on a permanent basis in statute, there are impacted by trade deals, such as chemicals, which the certain distances yet to come. Obviously, like other amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of noble Lords, I question the content, the purpose and Balmacara, makes provision for. This, from memory, remit of Amendment 36, which seems to nullify the has already been referred to by the noble Lord, impact of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Lord Grantchester, in his submission. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Henig and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I ask I am very happy to support Amendments 7 and 44. the Minister to outline the purpose and remit to see I am pleased that the Trade and Agriculture Commission whether he can provide us with any assurances that it will be put on a permanent basis, but I plead with is not simply there to negative what is already in the Government not to negative the good work by existence by way of secondary legislation or in a having Amendment 36, and ask the Minister not to statutory instrument. press that. 1019 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1020

6 pm result, it will give the Minister every opportunity to use the proposed new clause in Amendment 36 to repeal Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I it by statutory instrument. That will lead to a huge wish to speak primarily on Amendment 7 in the name loss of public confidence in the Government and in of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and other agriculture, which has been a matter of so much debate. noble Lords. I also support Amendment 32 on the need for consent from devolved Ministers. In my Second We brought the Government to this state, kicking Reading speech on the Agriculture Bill, I welcomed and screaming, through the hard work on the Agriculture the setting up of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, Bill. Could my noble friend tell me what membership particularly the appointment of the president of the he envisages for this commission? The point has been Farmers’ Union of Wales as a member. I played a made that it is a bit vague, but unless the commission small part in the founding of the union 65 years has experts and access to experts, it will not be able to ago—rather a long time. report to the high standard that we hoped and expected of it. Can the commission do work other than looking I received an excellent briefing note from the NFU, at trade deals once they have been negotiated? Will and I hope that the Minister will give the assurances there be a lull? If a negotiation is going on, the that it seeks in that note. The establishment of the commission can look at it, and that might bring up commission as a statutory board is important and other bits of work that it ought to do for future trade gives it a degree of permanence, and I welcome the deals. But the Government could turn around and say thrust of the government amendments. The NFU has to the commission that because there is no trade deal raised the issue of the range of necessary expertise under negotiation, sorry, your job is finished. Could required of its members. It is the word “expertise” on my noble friend be more specific on the workload he which we need further reassurance. I emphasise the expects of the TAC? obvious point that agricultural expertise is a vital requirement. I need not say anything further on that. The next point I want to raise was also raised by my It also raises the issue of ensuring that devolved noble friend Lady McIntosh when she introduced interests are properly catered for. I hope that the Amendment 7. It is on the wording of the proposed Government will accept Amendment 32. It was around new subsection (2)(4A)(a) in Amendment 34, which 1 March 1977 when agricultural responsibility in Wales refers to “human life or health”. What happens around was transferred from the Government, of which I was food security that affects people’s health? Will it be a Member, to the Secretary of State for Wales. I tried covered by the work of the commission? When we to anticipate how experience in handling agricultural were discussing the Agriculture Bill, the quality of matters outside Whitehall would be important for a food that would be produced by and imported to this future devolved Government in Wales. Regrettably, country was a huge concern. It affects human health this important step had to wait until 1999, but this is and, if the TAC is not allowed to look at human one example of the building bricks that were necessary health, will aspects of that be omitted? to be transferred and that were so important to the My last point concerns the shortness of the TAC’s future devolved Administration—hence it is vital that life. Is my noble friend convinced that he will get the they are properly consulted. right quality of people to serve on it, given that it is an When I was the Welsh Secretary, I also ensured intermittent body, with every likelihood that a Minister that, when Brussels was concerned with Welsh interests, could wake up one morning and lay a statutory instrument I attended with the Whitehall Minister of Agriculture. for its demise? Before a Government decision is made I would be particularly pleased to hear more about the and such a statutory instrument is laid, will my noble scope of work intended for the commission. This should friend confirm that he will consult all relevant interested be spelled out before we leave this important issue. parties and publish their advice? If that is not the case, I fear that the TAC will not produce the quality of Lastly, I believe that reassurance is needed about reports that we want and will not continue in existence the intention of the Government to review the TAC for as long as many noble Lords have anticipated. I every three years. It is vital to have wide consultations hope that my noble friend can change my one and a with relevant interests at this stage. This is a very half cheers into three cheers. important body. I welcome it and, in particular, its extended remit and degree of permanence. It will be there to give the views of agriculture to the Government Baroness Boycott (CB): My Lords, as always, it is a of the day. I support the amendment. great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I greatly agree with what he said and want to amplify one of his points. I also support Amendment 7, but do The Earl of Caithness (Con): My Lords, I had very not think that it is finished business yet. much hoped to give three loud cheers to the Government When the Agriculture Bill passed through Parliament, for putting down this amendment but, at the moment, many noble Lords advocated amendments about the my noble friend has one and a half cheers. But I am UK’s food standards: that they should be written into extremely grateful to the Government for at least law to protect us from lower food standards in the putting down this amendment. future. This was backed massively by the public, as the A number of points have been raised, and the point noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and many other noble which struck home was that made by the noble Baroness, Lords have said. Some 2.6 million people signed a Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who said that public number of related petitions, and 260,000 people took expectation is high for the TAC. She is absolutely the trouble to write to their MP because they were right. I fear that the TAC, as proposed in the amendments concerned about this. The Government have instead before us, will turn out to be a peely-wally TAC. As a opted to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission 1021 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1022 on to a statutory footing, extending its lifespan and why the Government chose not to put public health requiring it to look after these important matters. Is right at the top of the Agriculture Bill as a public this enough? I think not. good. I know it is impossible to recompense people for We know that trade deals can put huge pressure on growing food which has a monetary value, but I do not food standards and lead to the import of food produced feel reassured about where this is going to be. I am also to lower—or indeed higher—standards. Evidence shows not reassured that it will be left in the hands of the that a number of prospective future trading partners Food Standards Agency, much as I admire it, because want the UK to lower its food and animal welfare I do not understand its relationship to the Trade and standards and to allow the import of currently banned Agriculture Commission. At the moment we do not products, including the well-known examples of chlorine have a public health expert on that body. This is chicken and hormone beef as well as others such as slithering through the cracks; if we do not catch it products containing residue of pesticides. now, in future it could have very serious consequences The TAC was formed by the Government in response for us all. to consumer and farming concerns. Its main aim is to Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]: My Lords, my consider the development of the Government’s trade interests are as recorded in the register. It is a great policy,to reflect consumer and developing world interests honour and privilege to follow my noble friend and to consider how we engage with the WTO on Lady Boycott, whose contributions are always thought- animal welfare. However, as it stands, it will relate only provoking and based on her immense knowledge of ever to broad farming, food, environmental and animal food and agriculture. I thank the noble Baroness, welfare concerns. Food safety is considered, but not Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her amendments and public health. continuing commitment to the Trade and Agriculture However, we now have it on a statutory footing and Commission’s purpose, in the Agriculture Bill and have expanded proposals for membership to include this Bill. experts on trade, animal and plant health, and animal I will speak to Amendments 31, 34, 35 and 36 in the welfare. This is welcome but not enough. The name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel. Government’s amendment categorically excludes the I very much welcome these amendments and congratulate TAC from considering the impact of agri-food trade the Government on introducing them into the Bill. on human health. Its reference to what the TAC The future of the Trade and Agriculture Commission reports on states that, in preparing the report for was the subject, as has already been mentioned this Parliament, the Secretary of State for International afternoon, of much debate on the Agriculture Bill. Trade must The amendments to that Bill—Clause 42, which the “request advice from the Trade and Agriculture Commission … Government finally introduced under pressure— except insofar as they relate to human life or health”. complement the amendments we are considering this If the TAC is limited to thinking about health very afternoon. narrowly, within the confines of a sanitary or phytosanitary source, wider considerations such as 6.15 pm impacts to diets, antimicrobial resistance or pesticide When I stated that I welcome these amendments, it residues will be lost. If it is not the role of the TAC to is not just I who is delighted to see them but hundreds consider this, who will consider it? We all know the of stakeholder organisations, and, as my noble friend long impact of bad diets—those heavy in sugar, fats Lady Boycott mentioned, a significant proportion of and salts. We have seen this as Covid has torn through the British public demonstrated how concerned they our communities this year. We legislate very well and were about this issue. All were concerned about the effectively that food will not kill you today, but we possibility of imported food being allowed to enter the have nothing on food that will kill you tomorrow or, UK which was produced to lower production standards more to the point, in your children’s tomorrows. than our domestic standards—not that ours are perfect, The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics published a but they are among the highest in the world. report just last week showing how future trading To give a bit of background, I chaired the Meat and partners for the UK are giving livestock antibiotics to Livestock Commission during the 1990s, when we had make them grow faster, a practice which has rightly one food scare after another—E. coli, salmonella and been illegal in the UK and across the EU since 2006. BSE, to name a few—and consumer confidence in our When I raised this in this House the other day, the food was at an all-time low. The Food Standards Minister was emphatic that we have good antibiotic Agency was established at the end of that decade. rulings.However,in 2022 the EU will ban the importation Since then, we have slowly but surely restored public of meat and dairy produced in this way but the UK confidence through hard work and considerable Government have not yet committed to this. This new investment. It has been hard won. As an example of report shows that, overall, farm antibiotic use per recent activity, again mentioned by my noble friend animal is about five times higher in the US and Canada Lady Boycott, we have reduced our antibiotic usage in compared with us, with use in United States cattle farm animals by almost 50% in the past five years—a being about seven times higher. Antibiotic use per significant achievement—and the farming and food animal in Australian poultry is 16 times higher than industry is very committed to continuing on this vital ours. These are very serious facts. journey of continually improving our standards. Where is public health? Somewhere between the The Trade and Agriculture Commission’s role is Agriculture Bill, the Trade Bill and the TAC. Why is it not in my view a protectionist measure to support UK not in a leading role as we go forward in these crucial agriculture. It is a measure to ensure UK consumers debates? I understand, although I might not agree, continue to enjoy food produced to high standards— 1023 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1024

[LORD CURRY OF KIRKHARLE] accepting and then acting on a case that has been including in animal welfare—that is safe and nutritious made powerfully. In that regard, I welcome the way in but also allows UK producers to compete on a level which the Minister brought forward the amendments playing field not just in our home market but, hopefully, and his openness in discussing them. increasingly in export markets too. Importantly, it is He will be aware of the response that I and my also evidence of the Government’s ambition to influence noble friend gave, which is reflected in our amendment. global trading standards. My noble friend outlined that in clear terms, and I will I am very grateful to the Minister for his willingness simply refer to it before I close. However, before doing to discuss this amendment and these issues. I thank so, I want to say that I agree with the point made by him for his time. I am interested in two elements of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about the motives these amendments, both of which have been referred behind the Government putting this advisory body, to in one way or another this afternoon, which I hope but not others, on a statutory footing. We know that he will be able to address. that is probably because of the strong campaigning The first is the process of appointing members to that took place,and that is to the credit of the campaigners, the commission. I would appreciate an explanation of who pressed hard for it. However, the Government the qualities and expertise the Secretary of State will have been slightly coy about saying why the agriculture seek to identify in potential candidates, bearing in advisory group will be put on a statutory footing but mind the complexity of the task and the technical not the trade advisory groups that cover key sectors of knowledge that will be needed to be able to evaluate the British economy: agri-food; automotive, aerospace the terms of trade deals. For example, I would have and marine; British manufactured and consumer goods, thought that an understanding of the technical aspects telecoms and technology; chemicals; life sciences; the of food production will be a necessary requirement. creative industries; investment; transport services; Having established the TAC, the Government need to professional advisory services; and financial services. ensure that the range of knowledge and expertise in it All those areas are covered by trade advisory groups. allows them to broaden its role in providing advice on What interaction will there be when the trade agreement other issues if required. is being prepared but before it is laid before Parliament The second is a concern that the noble Baroness, under the CRaG process? Why, uniquely, does a report Lady Boycott, has already expressed very eloquently, on the elements in Section 42 of the Agriculture and I now express it directly to the Minister. I refer to Act 2020 have to be received from the Trade and the exclusion of human life and health from the remit Agriculture Commission but not from the other trade of the TAC—a matter also referred to by the noble advisory groups? Earl, Lord Caithness. There is a deep worry among If the intention behind this is, as the Minister will many NGOs about this exclusion and the reasons for surely say, to enhance scrutiny, how will we know the it. This concern relates not only to food safety and views of the trade advisory groups for those other production standards but, importantly,to the nutritional sectors of the economy at exactly the same time as the standards of imported food. While we strive to address report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission is food-related diseases as a strategic priority in this presented to Parliament? Perhaps the Minister could country, as well as the impact of obesity on the make that clear. The situation could be resolved quite nation’s health, excluding those things from the TAC’s straightforwardly: he could state at the Dispatch Box remit seems odd, particularly as imported processed that the Government intend to make sure that the food products could be a serious contributor to, and a other trade advisory groups are able to submit, and we negative influence on, health. are able to look at, their views on the impact assessments I would also be very interested in hearing the Minister’s of an agreement. response to a number of queries about Amendment 36. I hope that the amendment eloquently outlined by It would be helpful if he could explain the reasons for my noble friend does not fall foul of the castigatory the various issues that I have raised and, in particular, remarks from the Minister that my amendment received if he would reconsider the membership of the TAC as on the last occasion. In this amendment, I have simply far as human life and health are concerned. I thank used the Government’s wording. I quite liked the the Minister once again for his openness. wording of their amendment to the internal market Bill—consulting the devolved authorities on appointments Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, it is a to the office of the internal market. In fact, I liked it so pleasure to follow the noble Lord. It is clear that the much that I thought it should be used in this Bill too. government amendments the Minister is bringing forward If the Government appoint members of an advisory today have had a long gestation period—over many body for internal United Kingdom trade and consult years—and the noble Lord, Lord Curry, played a the devolved authorities, they should also consult the significant role in developing the higher standards devolved Administrations when appointing members which we now take for granted in many respects but of an external trade advisory body. That would be which we cannot take for granted in our trading quite straightforward, and for the Minister to accept relationships. Westill need the existing level of protection. that quickly when he winds up at the Dispatch Box I commend noble Lords who have shown great would not create any great problems. endurance and persistence and, ultimately, a degree of My wider question on the period of three years for success in their work. Among them, I include very the life of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is a much my noble friend Lady Bakewell. Like her, I feel good one to ask, as that period slightly jars with the that, having sat for many hours on the trade Bills and five-year period in this Bill for the regulation-making the Agriculture Bill, it is nice to see,finally,the Government powers. We have the slightly odd situation whereby, 1025 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1026 under the regulation-making powers in this legislation, Similarly, my noble friend’s amendments apply to the Government have five years but the Trade and all trade agreements, including continuity agreements. Agriculture Commission has only three. Why there is Instead, the TAC should focus on only new free trade that disjoint, I simply do not know. It would make agreements and agreements signed with continuity sense if, at the very least, the lifetime of the regulation- partners from 2023 onwards. The UK’s continuity making powers was the same as that of the Trade and FTAs, as I have said previously, roll over existing EU Agriculture Commission. arrangements that we now wish to hold on a bilateral The amendments on consultation should be basis. Those agreements were scrutinised under straightforward. I am not being facetious but I hope EU scrutiny procedures and simply replicate existing the Minister can provide reassurance on the Government’s EU trade agreements, with necessary adjustments to intention to consult before the appointments are made. reflect the UK context. I am not sure whether the amendment in my name and The Government have listened carefully to the concerns that of my noble friend will allow the noble Earl to of the House with regard to independent scrutiny of have two or two and a half cheers. I think that they FTAs.I am very pleased to bring forward Amendments 31, enhance this. I am grateful to him for allowing me to 34, 35, 36, 49 and 50, which will put the Trade and explain to my noble friend Lord Fox what peely-wally Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing. This means. I hope that, with these amendments, the step is integral to boost scrutiny of our new free trade government amendments will be less peely-wally and agreements as we move on from continuity. that maybe there will be an improvement. The current TAC had a different function. It was established as an independent advisory board in July Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): My Lords, this 2020 to advise and inform the Government on their group consists of government amendments, together future trade policy. It aims to ensure that animal with amendments from my noble friend Lady McIntosh welfare and environmental standards in food production of Pickering and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of are not undermined, that consumer and developing Balmacara and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I will try to set country interests are represented and that new export a good example by keeping my comments tight and to opportunities are secured for producers in all parts of the point, and I will of course write to noble Lords the UK. The amendments today will not impact the whose comments I do not do justice to in my response. role of the current TAC, which will still produce a I am convinced that one thing I have learned in taking report by February 2021. I put on record that the this Bill through your Lordships’ House is that it is not Government are thankful for the commitment, time, possible to please all the people all the time in relation investment and hard work that current TAC members to the contents of the Bill. and representatives of its working groups have put in, I turn, first, to the amendments in the name of my and we commend the success it has had to date. We noble friend Lady McIntosh. Although their purpose believe that the action we are now taking to put the and intent are similar to those underpinning the TAC on to a statutory footing will be an important government amendments before your Lordships—to development in boosting the scrutiny of the Government’s ensure that high standards of imports into the UK are trade policy. maintained—my noble friend’s amendments go further. Amendment 34 places the Secretary of State under They would create a body responsible for setting criteria a duty to seek advice from the TAC on matters set out for assessing whether provisions in trade agreements in Section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020, excluding on UK imports meet or exceed domestic standards on human life and health—I know that this point is of a very wide range of issues. This would, as a result, set concern to a number of noble Lords; I will come back restrictions on what goods could be imported under to it in a moment—in preparing a report to Parliament trade agreements. to accompany relevant free trade agreements laid under It is not appropriate for the UK to impose our the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act standards on other countries and prohibit imports of procedures. I particularly reassure the noble Lord, goods that do not meet our standards where there is Lord Grantchester, that the omission of human health no basis to do so. Not only could doing so put us in from the remit of the TAC does not in any way breach of our WTO obligations but, as we spoke diminish the importance that we will attach to it. It is about in Committee on a similar amendment, such just that, when we looked at the composition of the action has the potential to harm the economies of TAC and its range of duties, it seemed that expert developing countries and some of the poorest people advice relevant to human life and health would best be in society, and to increase protectionism. sourced separately from other, more expert bodies in The amendment is unnecessary as the standards that field. The report under the Agriculture Act will that it seeks to protect are already enshrined in domestic include both advice that comes from the TAC and statute and the Government will uphold them. Any advice that comes from other relevant bodies in relation changes to existing standards would, of course, require to human life and health. The duty will be exercised, new legislation to be scrutinised by Parliament. I but not through the TAC. believe that the Government have taken decisive action Section 42 of the Agriculture Act places a duty on to uphold our commitments to high standards.Extending the Secretary of State to report on whether the measures the remit of the TAC to areas such as human rights in certain future FTAs applicable to trade in agricultural would run the risk of duplicating the functions of products are consistent with maintaining UK trusted bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights domestic statutory protections for human, animal or Commission. I am sure that that is not something my plant life or health, animal welfare and the environment. noble friend would wish. The TAC advice will inform that report. It will be laid 1027 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1028

[LORD GRIMSTONE OF BOSCOBEL] I want completely to reassure noble Lords about separately before Parliament as an independent report, the consequences of Amendment 36, which, I fear, has but it will not be the totality of the report under been misunderstood by Members. Amendment 36 is the Act. entirely dependent on Amendment 34. Only if the The role of the statutory TAC will therefore represent Amendment 34 process every three years resulted in a an evolution of the current TAC. The statutory TAC’s decision by Parliament that the TAC should be wound purpose—to provide advice under Section 42 of the up would the provisions of Amendment 36 come into Agriculture Act—is set out in Amendment 31, and the effect to pass the necessary statutory instruments to TAC advice will ensure independent expert scrutiny of repeal the TAC. Amendment 36 does not stand alone new free trade agreements. The request for advice by so it could not be used for the Secretary of State to the Secretary of State and any guidelines will be wind up the TAC on a whim; that would be a ludicrous published, and advice supplied by the TAC will be laid proposition. I apologise if noble Lords have found before Parliament. That is the role of the TAC. It is the drafting of the amendment confusing in that not a standing body producing advisory reports, as respect, but I can give them complete reassurance on one might have deduced from the existing TAC; it is an that matter. independent expert body scrutinising new free trade I believe that the role of the statutory TAC agreements as and when they come along. complements other measures that the Government Amendment 31 creates a power for the Secretary of have taken to further enhance scrutiny of new FTAs State to appoint members and, of course, a duty to and ensure that the views of the agricultural sector are have regard to the desirability of appointing members taken into account during the negotiations process. with expertise specific to the role of the TAC. The Indeed, this will not be the only independent scrutiny Government will work to ascertain the range of skills that our new free trade agreement will receive: the and knowledge required for the commission, noting International Trade Committee in the other place and that additional skills and expertise might be required our own IAC will also, of course, provide critical and that the list in the amendment is not, of course, scrutiny and advice on our negotiated deals, just as exclusive. The TAC must have those skills but the this took place with the Japan agreement. I reassure Secretary of State is free to decide that it might need noble Lords that the Government remain committed additional skills other than those on the list. to listening to and engaging with consumers, farmers I can absolutely affirm to your Lordships that the and industry in negotiating our free trade agreements, Secretary of State will make appointments in line with and we value the input that they provide in this all the usual public law principles applicable to all process. ministerial decision-making and within the confines It is important to remember that our expert trade of the new statutory provisions. These will be direct and advisory groups, representing businesses, consumers appointments and will follow established protocols, and civil society, already provide advice during free demonstrating the department’s commitment to a robust trade agreement negotiations—this is an essential process and eliminating any conflicts of interest. The difference from the TAC—and we will not seek to steps required as part of this process will be reflected duplicate that important work. In particular, there is a in the TAC’s terms of reference. dedicated agri-food trade advisory group, in which the As a non-incorporated expert committee—I might agri-foods sector is represented; it does an excellent just dwell on those words for a moment—the commission job of representing that sector. will provide the Government with independent external advice to deliver additional scrutiny of free trade I believe that these amendments will help the UK agreements. It will comprise technical experts who can safeguard our current standards of agricultural products, analyse complex treaty text and provide robust and put British farming at the heart of our trade policy balanced advice to Parliaments. Members of the TAC and ensure that our agricultural sector is among the will be chosen to have knowledge of standards across most competitive and innovative in the world. I hope the whole of the UK. Tomy noble friend Lady McIntosh, that noble Lords will be able to support the amendments I say that what we are establishing is not a body with a brought forward by the Government. CEO that produces annual reports; it is a group of experts On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, who have a specified task to do, which is put in front of Lord Purvis of Tweed, as I have already mentioned, them every time a new FTA comes down the tracks. the TAC will be an expert committee; members Amendment 34 will require the TAC to be reviewed will be independent experts, appointed as individuals, every three years. Of course, I can see from this debate not as representatives of academia, business or other that there is perhaps a misunderstanding among noble organisations for which many of them may work. As I Lords about what exactly that means. In my experience, said before, the Secretary of State will make appointments it is good practice for these bodies to be reviewed after in line with established protocols, following the usual a period of time, and three years is not an uncommon public law principles applicable to all ministerial decision- period. However, it in no way means that the body will making. The statutory TAC will represent an evolution be wound up after that time, because the TAC must of the current TAC to reflect its purpose as set out in stay in place unless the Government bring forward Amendment 33. Of course, the membership will be secondary legislation via the affirmative procedure to considered accordingly. We are committed to ensuring repeal the TAC’s provisions. There is a review every that only expertise will drive the appointment of new three years, but only if that review comes forward with members. It is critical for the success of the TAC that recommendations that both Houses of Parliament the advice is independent and underpinned by the accept can the TAC be discontinued. expertise listed in the amendment. 1029 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1030

As I have said before, the central purpose of the Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: My Lords, TAC is to improve scrutiny of FTAs prior to their I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate and ratification. Therefore, as I said earlier, it is related to a in particular to the Minister for his response to the reserved matter: the ratification of free trade agreements. concerns that have been raised. His conclusion backs As such, the TAC amendment does not engage the ours; nearly everybody who has spoken has spoken in legislative consent process under the Sewel convention. favour of the permanency, beyond an initial three or While we acknowledge, of course, that the work of the six years, of the TAC. He himself just accepted that in TAC will touch on the devolved matter of agriculture, his last few words. this does not alter the fact that its function relates to a To come back to the basic points: we all agree it is reserved matter. excellent that the government amendments put the However, the UK Government recognise that, as TAC on a statutory footing. In the words of my noble agriculture is a devolved matter, the devolved friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that goes a little Administrations, of course, have a legitimate interest way but not far enough towards independence. in the TAC’s work. Therefore, the Minister of State for I am not sure I got an answer on which resources Trade Policy has written to them, seeking their views will be allocated. I realise it is not our place, in this on the statutory TAC, and he will discuss it with them House, to say that, but we did not get an answer on it. at the ministerial forum for trade later this week. I On the question of permanence, I will revert to that. hope that noble Lords understand that the commitments that we have made, when pulled together, create a The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, identified a gap further commitment to produce a report on standards in all the amendments—government amendments and in FTAs in relation to specific concerns, as outlined Amendments 7 and 44—in a lack of understanding in Section 42 of the Agriculture Act. Through our about what government strategy for trade will be. I amendment, we are proposing to put the Trade and agree with her on that. Why would we want to tie Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing—I ourselves to all these commitments, which, inevitably, sense that noble Lords welcome this—and to provide a CPTPP free trade agreement would involve, when we advice in relation to this. I therefore ask my noble are tying ourselves up in knots regarding those with friend to withdraw Amendment 7. the EU? It also begs the question of why we have committed ourselves to a strict regime on state aid with the Japan free trade agreement, which goes further The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD): I have than what we are currently willing to agree to in a received a request to ask a short question from the future trade agreement with the EU. noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, so I call the noble The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, put his finger Lord to ask a short question of elucidation. on the point in his last question, but also on the fact that the matter of standards is unfinished business, Lord Grantchester (Lab): I thank the Minister for which we have carried over from the Agriculture Act. I his extensive explanations behind his amendments, join other noble Lords in paying tribute to all the farm although, obviously, I will look carefully at Hansard organisations—the NFU, the TFA, the CLA and all later, and we may further follow up aspects of this. I the green organisations, which have been united with would like to draw out from him one further explanation. the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, mentioned I listened carefully to his explanations, and I concede the 1 million signatures we had that gave rise to that due process would take place before Amendment amendments in this group, which were previously 36 was invoked and after Amendment 34 had been tabled during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. implemented. But what could be the circumstances in My noble friend Lord Caithness was right to stop which a review would give rise to an abandonment of at one and a half cheers. Both he and the noble Lord, the TAC process in future trade assessments? Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have identified the need to know more about what the membership of the Trade 6.45 pm and Agriculture Commission will be going forward Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): I thank the Although my noble friend the Minister has put a little noble Lord for that question. Pragmatically, the most more meat on the bones, it is still vague. likely circumstance would be if a bigger and better I did not understand entirely whether the relevant idea came along. For a Trade Minister to come to this committee, especially in the Commons, will be entitled House or the other place and say they were winding to do a public appointment hearing regarding the up the TAC and nothing was being put in its place future chair, or the reappointment of the current chair, would lead to a difficult debate. This is, perhaps, part of the TAC. My noble friend may have misunderstood of the whole process. We are new to trade agreements, the role of human rights issues and employment law in the way we are handling them is evolving, and matters this regard. These are now standard in agreements may evolve with that. before the World Trade Organization and international I stress again that there is nothing Machiavellian agreements, so I am slightly surprised that he thought about the three-year review point. It is certainly not I was seeking to undermine the Equality and Human Machiavellian to require both Houses to agree to any Rights Commission in this country, which of course winding up of the TAC. Other noble Lords will be was not my intention. more expert than I am on this, but I would be surprised On independence, I am not sure that we are 100% if either our House or the other place resolved to wind where we should be, certainly on resources. It would up the TAC unless something bigger and better was have been helpful to have further clarification. I have being put in its place. made my point about how appointments should be 1031 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1032

[BARONESS MCINTOSH OF PICKERING] discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything scrutinised by the relevant committee and I stand by else in this group to a Division should make that clear that. I am sorry if I did not hear my noble friend in debate. confirm that. Also, when my noble friend says that reports on agreements will be “laid before Parliament”, I presume he means that they will be debated and Amendment 8 voted on in the usual way. Moved by Lord Collins of Highbury It would be more helpful than anything else if my 8: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— noble friend would withdrawgovernment Amendment 36 at this stage. I do not think that it has been drafted “Free trade agreements: determination on compliance with international obligations and state actions clearly and it does not sum up the debate that we have heard on this group. What compounds this is that, on (1) Before publishing the objectives and any initial impact assessments of a proposed trade agreement to be a closer reading of government Amendment 34 on implemented under the Constitutional Reform and which my noble friend has relied in summing up his Governance Act 2010, the Government must conduct a arguments, the review to which he has referred, in risk assessment which considers whether the agreement subsection (4) of government Amendment 34, allows would comply with the United Kingdom’s international that, in subsection (6B) of proposed new Section 42 of treaties and other obligations, with particular reference the Agriculture Act: to human rights, and examines serious violations committed, or alleged to have been committed by the “The Secretary of State may by regulations repeal subsections state or states who will be signatory to the proposed (4A), (4B) and (6A), and amend subsection (5) to remove reference trade agreement. to advice requested in accordance with subsection (4A)” (2) The risk assessment under subsection (1) must be That of course is the very advice that is the subject of presented to the relevant Committees in both Houses of this group of amendments: requesting advice from the Parliament. Trade and Agriculture Commission on the matters (3) Before a trade agreement can be laid before Parliament referred to in subsection (2) of the new clause under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and “except insofar as they relate to human life or health.” Governance Act 2010 (“the CRAG procedure”), I also did not quite understand what the Minister Ministers of the Crown must determine whether the said in summing up how the Government will report. trade agreement, if ratified, would be compliant with the He said that the TAC will report on so much as United Kingdom’s international obligations, with particular reference to human rights, and whether regards advice, but not on public health. He did not serious violations have been committed by the state outline how or when that duty will be exercised in or states of the signed trade agreement. Such a terms of future trade agreements, which body would determination must be published and made available to be doing those, and to whom that advice would be the relevant Committees at the same time as they are tendered if it is not going to be tendered by the Trade requested to consider a signed trade agreement. and Agriculture Commission. (4) The Government must present an annual report to the I think that the will of the House has been expressed relevant Committees in both Houses of Parliament on the continuing compliance of trade agreements with the strongly this evening that public health and food security United Kingdom’s international obligations, with should continue to be included. I do not know whether particular reference to human rights, and which I have an opportunity to revert to my noble friend to examines serious violations committed or alleged to have answer those two points before I decide whether to been committed by the state or states who are signatory withdraw my Amendment 7. to the trade agreement since it was signed. If breaches of the United Kingdom’s international obligations or The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD): Is the serious violations have taken place, Ministers of the Crown must make a determination on the continuation noble Baroness withdrawing her amendment? I cannot of a trade agreement. hear a response. (5) In this section, “serious violations” include an activity by a state which would violate an individual’s— Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: I am so sorry. I am seeking clarification as to whether it is the (a) right to life, including but not limited to genocide; Government’s intention to withdraw Amendment 36 (b) right not to be subjected to torture or cruel this evening. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (c) right to be free from slavery and not to be held in Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): Perhaps I can servitude or required to perform forced or help my noble friend. The Minister is happy with what compulsory labour; or he has said, and I urge my noble friend to draw her (d) other major violations of human rights and remarks to a close. fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: I wish to the International Covenant on Civil and Political press my amendment. Rights. (6) In this section, “trade agreement” refers to any Amendment 7 disagreed. agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD): My the trade of goods, services or intellectual property, Lords, we now come to the group beginning with including but not limited to— Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that Members (a) free trade agreements as defined by section 4; other than the mover and the Minister may speak only (b) Interim Association Agreements and Association once and that short questions of elucidation are Agreements; 1033 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1034

(c) Economic Partnership Agreements; “May will definitely not make any comment contrary to the … (d) Interim Partnership Agreements; goals of her China trip . For the Prime Minister the losses outweigh the gains if she appeases the UK media at the cost of (e) Stabilisation and Association Agreements; the visit’s friendly atmosphere.” (f) Global Agreements; (g) Economic Area Agreements; 7 pm (h) Cooperation Agreements; The Government’s pragmatism on human rights (i) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreements; has been particularly clear when it comes to the promotion (j) Association Agreements with strong trade of trade. We have seen the red-carpet treatment given component; to notorious human rights abusers such as Crown (k) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships; Prince bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, justified by his and willingness to invest Saudi’s wealth in the UK and (l) Investment Protection Agreements.” increase Saudi imports from the UK. However, as with the previous group, there are Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, I thank 15 countries with which the Government say they are the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the right reverend still in ongoing negotiations about rolling over beyond Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for signing this 31 December the preferential trading arrangements amendment. I also particularly thank the noble Lord, the UK currently has with them as a member of the Lord Alton, for his support. Despite what we might EU. These include countries with very poor records on read in the newspapers, there is no difference between human rights, including Cameroon, Egypt, Singapore, us on these issues and, in particular, in ensuring that Uganda, Turkey and South Sudan. All those countries those people who commit genocide are held to account. have been the subject of very detailed debate in this We have a long record of working together on this and House and condemnation by Ministers in this Chamber. I am sure we will continue that co-operative approach Can the Minister say whether the draft deals under tonight. discussion will replicate or improve on the EU clauses As we heard in the previous group of amendments, on the protection of human rights? all EU trade deals since 2009 have had human rights The end of last week saw the announcement that a clauses embedded in them, allowing the EU to suspend rollover trade agreement has been signed between the a deal, either partially or fully, if the third country is UK and Egypt. This is welcome news for UK firms adjudged responsible for human rights abuses. While trading with Egypt, but that cannot be the sole this power has not been exercised in any case so far, consideration when reaching an agreement with a EU representatives say that it is vital, first as a basis regime such as President Sisi’s—a regime which has for dialogue and progress on human rights issues jailed, executed and disappeared hundreds of political during the negotiation phase for any new deal and, opponents and human rights activists, brutally persecuted secondly, to apply ongoing pressure on third countries the country’s LGBT community and seen Egypt become around these issues. one of the world’s top worst countries for workers’ In February 2019, the then International Trade rights. As President-elect Biden has said, there should Secretary Liam Fox revealed that the watering down be no more blank cheques handed to a dictator such of human rights provisions was something many third as Sisi. countries were demanding as the price of agreeing a In negotiating this rollover agreement the Government deal. He suggested then that the UK would not accept had an opportunity and a responsibility to replace the these demands, saying: toothless platitudes on human rights in the 2001 EU-Egypt “Some countries have said that they did not like some of the agreement, and its total silence on workers’ rights, human rights elements that were incorporated by the EU and with meaningful, binding commitments on those issues they would like us to drop those in order to roll the agreements and serious, enforceable penalties. My honourable friend over.” Emily Thornberry, the shadow Secretary of State for Mr Fox went on to say: International Trade, wrote to Liz Truss this morning, “I am not inclined to do so, because the value we attach to asking her to divulge the terms of this agreement, so human rights is an important part of who we are as a country.”— that when we debated the issue this evening we would [Official Report, 13/2/19; cols. 892-93.] be aware of what the Government had achieved. Sadly, I totally agree with Mr Fox in that regard, and the there was no response and there has been no agreement, Minister’s words in Committee expressed similar so we cannot debate it. That is why we desperately sentiments, but how are such words being translated need this human rights amendment, which seeks to into reality? Is there evidence of a consistent approach make that process more transparent and accountable on human rights? Do we have a joined-up government to Parliament. approach? In 2016, Simon McDonald, head of the This amendment proposes a triple barrier against Diplomatic Service, told MPs that trade agreements with countries that abuse human “clearly more resource is devoted … to prosperity than to human rights. First, Ministers would be obliged to provide an rights.” assessment of the human rights record of any overseas Human rights are one of the things we follow, but state before starting trade negotiations with them, so not one of our top priorities. When Theresa May that this could be examined by the relevant scrutiny visited China in 2018, she was praised by the Chinese committees. Secondly, before seeking to ratify any state media for sidestepping the issue of human rights, subsequent trade deal, Ministers would have to publish putting the importance of what it called “pragmatic a determination of whether the state has committed collaboration” with China first. The media concluded: serious violations of human rights, so that this could 1035 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1036

[LORD COLLINS OF HIGHBURY] seek to test the opinion of the House. However, it is be considered by MPs and Peers as part of the CRaG not too late. I know that the Minister is listening. I process for the scrutiny of new trade agreements. sincerely hope that he is able to give us the assurances Thirdly, Ministers would be required to produce an that we so desperately seek. annual report on the ongoing compliance of their new trading partner with international human rights laws 7.10 pm and determine whether the UK’s trade agreement should continue if serious violations have occurred. Sitting suspended. Crucially, the determinations made by Ministers at stages two and three would be subject not only to scrutiny by Parliament but could potentially be challenged 7.41 pm in the courts by human rights campaign groups, if Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, the there was clear and verifiable evidence that the Government may be concerned to see noble Lords Government were ignoring serious human rights abuses return from that intermission invigorated and fortified and violations of international law. for the remainder of the evening that lies ahead. I start The definition of serious human rights violations in by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the the amendment includes references to genocide, torture, way in which he introduced his important amendment, servitude and compulsory labour. These are all charges to which I am a signatory, and the thoughtful way he that have been laid against the Communist Party of expressed the reasons that lie behind it. I will not say it China’s Government in their treatment of the country’s is a pleasure, because the issues we are discussing are Uighur population. The purpose of this amendment hardly that, but I am always glad to be able to stand is to cover the widest possible spectrum of abuses, with the noble Lord, specifically when we deal with mirroring the language used by the Government to atrocity crimes and human rights, and tonight is no determine the liability of foreign nationals to the exception. I support Amendments 8 and 11 and the Magnitskysanctions under the Sanctions and Anti-Money consequential new Schedule, which is linked to Laundering Act 2018, and to decide whether weapons Amendment 11. I am a signatory to those amendments, can be sold to overseas Governments under the arms proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Collins, and export licensing criteria. Lord Blencathra, from whom the House will hear in due course. We will be discussing a further amendment in the next group, and I want to make it clear that this side of In his well-judged opening speech, the noble Lord, the House will support it too. We do so because we Lord Collins, explained that the amendments focus on support the principle. There may be issues around the our duty to examine the human rights records of legal process that we need to address, but we will trading partners. Later, as the noble Lord said, the certainly support it. We are working together across House will debate Amendment 9, an all-party amendment the House to ensure that human rights abuses are in my name, which is more narrowly drawn, specifically properly addressed. targeting trade agreements with states accused of committing genocide, and putting in place a judicial This amendment targets a range of serious human mechanism to break the vicious circle that leads to rights abuses wider than the ultimate crime of genocide; inaction as genocides emerge. that is its purpose and I am sure that is why the noble Lord, Lord Alton, signed it. These include indiscriminate Like Amendment 9, Amendment 11 in the name of massacres of civilians, the use of torture and arbitrary the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also provides a mass detention, serious violence against peaceful judicial mechanism to enable a wholly independent protesters, et cetera. It also demands that the Government judge to assess human rights violations wider than make a determination of responsibility for human genocide. Amendment 8, in the name of the noble rights abuses, the basis of which can be challenged by Lord, Lord Collins, provides the opportunity, through Parliament and by the courts. risk assessment, parliamentary scrutiny and an annual report to Parliament, to look at serious violations of Finally,I want to repeat the argument that sympathetic human rights, including torture and servitude. I should words on the need for human rights and that human declare that I am a trustee of a charity, the Arise rights are taken into account, as I have heard used by Foundation, which combats modern-day slavery, and the Minister, are not enough. They need to be translated a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response. into a clear and accountable process—a process that is These amendments are not dependent on one another, accountable to this Parliament. For me, the best outcome or mutually exclusive. Taken together,they could provide today would have been if the Government had committed a combination of oversight and pressure from within to come up with their own transparent process, thereby and outside Parliament, providing belt and braces. If alleviating the need to divide the House. I think that, enacted, they will enable us to redefine our willingness across all sides of the House, we are totally committed to trade with those responsible for egregious crimes to human rights. There is no disagreement among us. against humanity—an opportunity which I flagged What this amendment is clearly seeking to do is ensure at Second Reading. Subsequently, on 29 September, that Parliament takes its responsibilities properly and during day 1 of our Committee proceedings, I moved that the processes used by the Government on human Amendment 33, an all-party amendment which I described rights are properly scrutinised. That is what we want. as an attempt to open a debate around three things: I fear that, prior to Report, the Minister has not first, doing business with regimes which commit serious given us the assurances that we so desperately wanted. breaches of human rights; secondly, the overreliance Therefore, I must give notice that, potentially, I will on non-democratic countries in the provision of our 1037 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1038 nationalinfrastructure;andthirdly,therolethatParliament under his regime range from 40 million to as many and the judicial authorities might have in informing as 80 million, through starvation, persecution, prison those questions. On 13 October, the fifth day of labour and mass executions. Committee, I moved Amendments 68 and 76A on the Notwithstanding the massacres in Tiananmen Square, narrower point of trading with countries judged by China in the late 1980s and early 1990s—I know the the High Court of England and Wales to be complicit noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, sometimes alludes to in genocide. this himself and knows it to be true—appeared to be moving towards economic and political reform, perhaps exemplified most of all in the important “one country, 7.45 pm two systems”pledge of the 1984 Sino-British declaration For the sake of completeness, I shall also refer to on Hong Kong. However—as we have seen with the my Amendment 5, which I moved on 29 June on dismantling of the Hong Kong model, the brazen Report of the telecommunications infrastructure Bill, arrests of pro-democracy campaigners, distinguished in which a number of noble Lords present tonight, in lawyers and opposition Members of the Legislative the House and online, participated. Despite a range of Council, and the emasculation of the rule of law—one- powerful speeches from all sides during that debate, party, one-system hegemony is the order of the day. the movers agreed to the Government’s request not to On the mainland, plurality and diversity are outlawed, press the amendment to a vote following an undertaking made manifest by the arrest and imprisonment of by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that dissidents, lawyers, artists, writers and religious adherents. the Government would engage with them and return I have reduced what I was going to say today in the at Third Reading with an amendment of their own. interests of time but I shall specifically mention Xinjiang, Several cross-departmental meetings were subsequently where an estimated 1 million Muslims are incarcerated held but the Government were unable to table a Third in re-education and forced labour camps, subjected to Reading amendment, and indeed that Bill has disappeared brainwashing and surveillance, turned into slaves, into the long grass. separated from their families, sterilised and aborted I am deeply disappointed that the Government and told to disown their culture and their religion—even have not used the Trade Bill to resolve this issue. I echo forced to watch the destruction of their cemeteries, the what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said about that desecration of their mosques and the obliteration of missed opportunity for the Government to bring forward their identity.Professor Adrian Zenz, a German scholar, an amendment that they themselves had crafted. The has described this as House needs to understand that, despite the willingness “the largest detention of an ethnoreligious minority since World of noble Lords to engage with Ministers, the principle War Two”, that serious human rights violations and even the crime of genocide should determine our trading while a Newcastle academic describes it as relationships has not been accepted by the Government. “a slow, painful, creeping genocide.” Sadly, like Banquo’s ghost, a government amendment Notwithstanding a great love of Chinese people is this evening absent from the Room—probably having and respect for Chinese culture, I carefully distinguish suffered the same fate as Banquo—which is why these between my love of China its people and my enmity to amendments are on the Order Paper. an ideology and a system that would treat its own It should be clearly stated that Amendments 8, 11 people in this barbaric way, brutally silencing any and 9 make no mention of any particular country that dissent. In considering our business and trade relations might fall foul of these provisions. The movers are with the Chinese Communist Party, we can do little clear that these are not catch-all amendments but are better than to consider the wise words of the noble carefully constructed to assess both the seriousness of Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes. He says that the CCP is such violations and the direction of travel of the “a regime which regards business, as well as the state-owned country concerned. I could of course provide the enterprises, as part of the political project.” House with a Baedeker’s guide to countries where There is an umbilical link between the CCP and the human rights violations occur, but that is not the point country’s companies—that is not in dispute. The of these amendments. Australian Strategic Policy Institute meticulously details However, in imagining the circumstances in which the global expansion of 23 key Chinese technology such amendments might come into play, I will give the companies and their links to the state. We know that House just one hypothetical example of a country Uighurs are used as forced labour in factories within whose human rights record should be scrutinised and the supply chains of at least 82 well-known global would be likely to be affected by these amendments. In brands in the technology, clothing and automotive that context, I refer to my role as vice-chair of the sectors, including Huawei, Apple, BMW, Gap, Nike, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uighurs and the Samsung, Sony and Volkswagen. According to one All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. However, report, the UK is strategically dependent on China for I add that the example is merely illustrative. our supplies in 229 separate categories of goods, 57 of Forty years ago, as a young Member of another which service elements of our critical national place, I had the opportunity in the early 1980s to travel infrastructure. in China. It was in the aftermath of the death of Mao Thedeepeningideologicalhostilityof XiJinping—who, Tse-Tung, whose 27-year reign of terror, which led to as President for life,has returned to a personal dictatorship the horrors of the Cultural Revolution and the Great not seen since the days of Mao—his hostility to Leap Forward, took the lives of tens of millions of democracy, international institutions, the rule of law, people. Estimates of the number of people who died and fundamental human rights, show how wrong western 1039 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1040

[LORD ALTON OF LIVERPOOL] Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, commended the approach Governments were to believe that more and more of involving the courts, and I thought, “That amendment trade with the CCP was going to insure us against an has got some traction”. As such, my amendment on ideology which despises liberal democracy and the human rights—not genocide—follows the structure of freedoms which we associate with it. I could cite other the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. For the examples of how these amendments might have human right abuses, I have selected, in the main, the application, but do not intend to weary the House principal ones from the European Convention on with that now. Human Rights. I do not intend to push my amendments As we consider future trading partners, we have the to a vote because I hope Amendment 8 will succeed, chance to link the trade we do with the values for and I will vote for it. which we stand. The United Kingdom was one of the The only little quibble I have with Amendment 8 nations that gave the world the 1948 Universal Declaration concerns subsection (5)(d) of the proposed new clause. of Human Rights and the convention on the crime of Subsection (5) talks about “serious violations” and genocide. Later, through the Helsinki accords, the lists “genocide”, “torture”, “inhuman or degrading United Kingdom and its allies knew the central treatment”, “slavery” and so on—but paragraph (d) importance of upholding of human rights with a then talks about patient determination that ultimately saw the collapse “other major violations of human rights” of the Berlin Wall. We did not achieve that by selling and lists: our souls to dictators. “the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International We believe in a rules-based international order and Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” we espouse liberal democracy,the upholding of diversity, My worry here is that one is getting down to less the protection of minorities and the eternal quest for important human rights, some of which I regard almost freedom. Those principles enunciated in these amendments as motherhood and apple pie. My concern is: would would send a signal of hope to beleaguered people in the Government use this as an excuse not to go down dire circumstances, but I end with what I think it will this route? say to the Chinese Communist Party and other violators of human rights. Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese writer and Yes, of course, they might accept genocide, slavery dissident, and Nobel laureate, who died in 2017, after and torture, but I question reporting to Parliament serving four prison sentences, said: every time that one of the more minor human rights is contravened. We may consider this terribly important “There is no force that can put an end to the human quest for freedom.” in our western liberal democracy, but I suspect that, if you look at the huge range of UN human rights, the We owe it people such as him, the incarcerated protocols and the additions to them, almost every Uighurs, the suffering Tibetans, the Falun Gong and single country in the world could be accused of breaching other religious believers persecuted for their faith, to one of them. That is my concern, and it is why, in my stand four-square with them in that quest. By voting Amendment 45, to which Amendment 10 refers, I for these amendments, we will demonstrate—to arrested listed the main ones from the European Convention lawyers such as Hong Kong’s Martin Lee; young jailed on Human Rights: pro-democracy campaigners such as Andy Li, Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow; to imprisoned newspaper “The right to life owner Jimmy Lai; and defiant women like the brave Freedom from torture Grandma Wong—that we will uphold the human rights Freedom from slavery of place such as Hong Kong and Xinjiang. We will put The right to liberty our belief in the quest for human freedom before The right to a fair trial … menacing intimidation, brutal suppression of human Freedom of expression rights and trade based on slave labour. It is for those Freedom of assembly reasons that these amendments are so important, and The right to marry and start a family” I will have no hesitation in voting for them tonight. and so on—because it is important to concentrate on the main ones. Lord Blencathra (Con): My Lords, I rise to speak in The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has set out in detail support of Amendment 8 and my own Amendments 10 the incredible abuses of the Uighur people in China. I and 45—that is 10 and 45, not 11 and 45. I have been put it this way: would we dream of doing a trade deal monitoring proceedings—watching them upstairs in with the regime in Burma, considering what it has my office—and I have popped down to the Chamber done? Would we do a trade deal with the late and for this debate. I shall attempt to be brief because highly unlamented Mugabe of Zimbabwe, after his much has been said, in such wonderful ways and in extermination of 20,000 of the Matabele people? No—of such a powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord course not. Yet in China—again, I distinguish between Alton, whom I regard as my noble friend, and by the the people of China and the communist regime—the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury—I think it is regime is equally as bad as Burma or Mugabe, and, as the first speech I have ever agreed with him on, although the noble Lord described, it is doing genocide in slow he may not find that helpful. motion, whereas Mugabe exterminated 20,000 Matabele My Amendment 10 is designed to emulate the in a few months. excellent Amendment 9 of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, Of course we would not do a trade deal with those because I seem to recall that, when he moved his countries or other regimes, but we are trading with amendments in Committee, the noble and learned China because it has got a grip on us: we are overreliant 1041 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1042 on trade with it and overdependent on it. This is not The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Alton, the time to get into and debate this with my noble have laid out many instances of human rights abuses friend the Minister, but I wish all success with Project around the world, including genocide. Until now, we Defend, which is aimed at trying to make sure that we have made trade agreements as part of the EU, and as reshore some of the things that we are dependent on the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has explained, human China for or that we source them from other countries. rights conditions are now applied to all EU trade Even something as bog-standard as paracetamol, which deals. Surely we do not intend to drop below those costs about a penny a tablet, should not be 99% standards. However, I noted during scrutiny of a sourced from chemicals in China and then produced recent SI on conflict minerals that we have fully signed in India; we must source more of these vital products up so far only to what the EU is implementing for and services from other countries. That is why I support Northern Ireland—because of the Northern Ireland Amendment 8. protocol. That does not reflect centrality for human To save time, because we are running rather late rights. I realise that the FCDO has a huge amount on tonight, I intend to withdraw from speaking on its plate, but EU agreements, with their human rights Amendment 9, but I completely support it. I will vote provisions, are scrutinised in the European Parliament. for it, and I hope it passes because it is probably the We have just passed an amendment that will, we most important amendment we have dealt with today hope, ensure that scrutiny by Parliament is part of our or tomorrow—or whenever we will address this Bill democratic future, just as it was when we were in again; it is the most important amendment, and I the EU. think the Government can easily, and should, accept The Government have made it clear that high human it. If the wording is slightly wrong, they have time to rights standards and values will drive global Britain. clean it up in the other place for us to get it back here Yet we hear that countries seek to exploit the fact that during ping-pong. With those remarks, I will conclude we are in a weaker position, as a nation of 67 million and let others speak. people, than the powerful economic bloc that is the I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, EU. We can already see how the EU is, for example, Lord Hope of Craighead, would make a comment, if seeking to drive up environmental standards using its he can bear it, on my point about some of the more muscle. trivial human rights abuses in case that weakens the The Government indicated that we could simply argument. I may be totally wrong, but if he has a roll over agreements with other countries—a somewhat chance to comment on it, I would greatly welcome peculiar thought, since it implied that there would be that. no advantages from leaving the EU. We have since discovered that other countries do not regard our The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) market as being as significant as the EU’s, and, moreover, (Lab): I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, they want to see how useful we might be as a route Lady Northover, who will be followed by the noble into the EU. All this means that in future it is likely to Lord, Lord Curry. be more difficult to make sure we build in human rights when seeking trade deals with other countries. 8 pm It has been a feature of the whole Brexit process that Baroness Northover (LD) [V]: I thank noble Lords things have been promised that turn out not to be easy for putting down these amendments, which I wish to to achieve after all. support. Noble Lords who have spoken have laid out Amendment 8 is totally in keeping with what the clearly why the amendments are needed and how Government say they wish to do, so they should surely vital it is that we do not slip backwards with regard support it. If they do not, it becomes even clearer that to human rights. As noble Lords have explained, we need this amendment. Amendment 8 sets out three ways in which to ensure that in agreeing to potential trade deals we do not The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) condone the abuse of human rights. Ministers must (LD): The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, assess human rights in the country or countries in has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord question before starting trade negotiations, present Curry of Kirkharle. their conclusions for scrutinyby the relevant parliamentary committees, and reassess when the negotiations are complete. They must also present an annual report on Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]: My Lords, I fully the matter. The courts could play a role in those first endorse the wise comments of the noble Lords, two stages, ensuring that these are not empty gestures, Lord Collins, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra, and for example to a Parliament with an overwhelming the remarks made just now by the noble Baroness, majority for the Government of the day. Lady Northover. I fully support these amendments The amendment’s definition of serious human rights and will reserve my comments for the debate on violations includes genocide, torture, slavery and forced Amendment 9 in the next group. labour, complementing the amendment that we will consider in the next group. As noble Lords have said, Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]: My Lords, I will the amendment reflects the language used by the speak in support of Amendment 8; I also support Government in relation to the Magnitsky sanctions Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord and arms export licensing. Of course, the FCDO Blencathra. In response to his kind invitation, I say to produces an annual report on countries of concern him that I do not think that the reference in his with regard to their human rights. proposed new schedule to other human rights weakens 1043 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1044

[LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD] House a great service and expressed himself much the argument in any way. I hope that he rests assured more clearly than I was able to do on subsection (9)(e) that that is the position, and that his amendment of the new clause proposed by my Amendment 7, stands as a good amendment that should be carefully where I briefly spoke about human rights. I ally myself considered. with comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Collins I do not believe that this country has been at all at and Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Blencathra fault in its support for the international treaties and and, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord obligations with reference to human rights to which Hope, whom I am delighted to follow. I was a little the amendment refers. Indeed, we have led the way disappointed by the less-than-enthusiastic response by from the very start in the international campaign for my noble friend the Minister to my raising of human the protection of human rights that began more than rights in the context of Amendment 7, and I hope that seven decades ago. Legislation has been brought forward he will do full justice to this group of amendments, with the minimum of delay on each occasion to which I intend to support if they are pressed to a vote. incorporate each of the protections and rights into our domestic law. Nevertheless, there are gaps in the Baroness Noakes (Con): My Lords, my first point mechanisms for giving effect to our international on these amendments is that I am fundamentally in obligations. With the exception of the UN Convention favour of trade. It is a huge part of our history as a against Torture, which enables the contracting parties nation and is certainly part of our ambitions for our to bring proceedings against any persons within their future outside the EU. Being in favour of trade does jurisdiction for acts of torture, wherever they were not mean that I am against human rights, but I believe committed, and some extensions of the reach of the that a mature trading nation has to be able to balance European Convention on Human Rights that have competing interests; for example, the desire for all resulted from decisions of the European Court in nations to uphold the highest standards of behaviour Strasbourg, the contracting parties can deal only with towards their citizens against the economic well-being offending acts that are committed within their own of our own nation. territories. They can deal only with persons who have Human rights abuses are not a black and white infringed their provisions; they cannot deal with acts, issue. At one extreme, there is appalling abuse, such as however egregious, committed by states. The fact is, the treatment of the Uighurs in China—though we however, that some of the most horrific infringements must not forget that China contests the facts. At the have been committed by state actors, to which the other extreme, there might be a nation state that has noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred, with the encouragement never committed a human rights abuse, but I am not and support of the states themselves. The prospect of sure one exists. The UK, for example, has been founding those states bringing the perpetrators to justice is wanting by the European Court of Human Rights on remote. The result is that there are places across the several occasions, and our own courts have found the world where those who are crying out for the benefit same. Importantly, there is a spectrum of grey where of internationally recognised human rights are without the difficult task of responsible government arises. any effective protection whatever. Both Amendments 8 and 10 envisage using the Quite how to meet this problem has puzzled many courts to decide whether a human rights abuse is one minds: it is not easy to find a workable solution, but that could, in effect, override or cancel the free trade we cannot stand idly by. We have to do the best we can. agreement. In the case of Amendment 10 in the name The amendment that follows, Amendment 9 in the of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, this is explicit, name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, but in the case of Amendment 8, the noble Lord, Lord offers one way in the case of the international crime of Collins of Highbury—I think that I am quoting him genocide. This amendment, which reaches out more correctly—said that the Government’s determinations widely across a whole range of violations affecting our under his new clause could be challenged by the courts. international human rights and obligations and, happily, The courts in the UK may be good at determining has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, too, whether human rights abuses have been committed in offers another. It fits in neatly with the aims and this country, but I do not believe that they are well purposes of this Bill. Furthermore, the way it seeks to placed to make any such determination in relation to give effect to our international obligations should overseas territories. serve as an example to other state parties that have Furthermore, both amendments open our courts to joined with us in the endeavour to extend the protection vexatious claims by human rights activists of all kinds. of fundamental human rights throughout the world. I have a vision of our hard-pressed judicial system The amendment would show leadership in an area of being swamped by the kind of litigation that is bound human affairs where this is much needed. I hope very to follow if these amendments become law. It is not much, therefore, that the Minister will feel able to wise to invite our courts into the territory that is accept it. properly the domain of the Government’s foreign and The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) trade policy; that would be a very poor outcome. (LD): The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has Amendment 8, unlike Amendment 10, does try to withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh restrict itself to “serious violations”, but it defines of Pickering. them widely in subsection (5)(d) as “other major violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: My Lords, I do not know what that means and I do not want our I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on so courts getting sucked into these sorts of issues, which eloquently moving his amendment. He has done the are, inevitably, political judgments at the end of the day. 1045 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1046

I have one fundamental objection to these amendments: Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD): My Lords, I they attack free trade agreements only.They do nothing support Amendment 8. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord about trade that carries on on WTO terms. We do not Sandwich, I also support Amendment 9. have a free trade agreement with China but we certainly In opening the debate on this amendment, the trade with it. If noble Lords think that passing either noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked whether we have a of these amendments, or Amendment 9 in the next consistent approach on human rights.The Prime Minister group, will do anything for the Uighurs in China, they spent a lot of time when he was Foreign Secretary, and are not being honest with themselves. We should be since then as Prime Minister, talking about going wary of using our power to legislate to do no more global. That is not just about trade, which concerns than virtue-signal. the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but about a wider set of interests and principles. We can trade widely but The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]: My Lords, I support is that all that we should be doing? I do not believe Amendment 8. We have been privileged to belong to that it is mere virtue-signalling to suggest that, if we the European Union and follow the Copenhagen want free trade agreements, we should also think principles, as they were once called. We followed these about wider issues associated with the countries with rules as EU members; they will now be translated into which we are trading. our own legislation. Even in the EU, there are countries The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is right that there where the rule of law falls short, yet we still trade with are difficulties in adjudicating on genocide. Whenever them. Beyond that, how can we influence and do genocide is raised with the Ministers at the FCDO, business with the more serious human rights offenders? they say, “We cannot possibly talk about it unless it Should we bring them aid and trade on the grounds has been brought as a legal case and confirmed by the that, in time, that might lead to a culture that could courts.” That is why Amendment 8 is important as a introduce new ideas and alleviate human rights offences? wider amendment that talks about human rights more It is an outdated, even arrogant, position—I am not generally, but the two go together. sure that it worked with Macaulay and Curzon in As my noble friend Lady Northover pointed out, it is India—but we still argue it. Sometimes, we have to go important that the Government support this amendment. further and resort to sanctions. Free trade should not be the only thing that matters. If, On the International Agreements Committee, I as an independent country now separate from the have argued for a stronger reference to human rights European Union, we seek to play a major role in the in the Explanatory Memorandum. In the past, you world, surely that should be based on our fundamental would see the phrase “no significant human rights values and principles—not just on the value of trading considerations”, but I know from the Minister’s contracts but on the value of relationships more generally. reassurance that the FCDO has been working hard on Trade in goods that comes from forced labour, modern this and things such as trafficking. The rollover agreements slavery and concentration camps is surely not something reiterate the EU clauses, including protection for thatanybodyinthiscountryorHerMajesty’sGovernment minorities. Can the Minister confirm that there has can condone. As my noble friend Lady Northover been further progress there as far as the new free trade said, surely the Government can support this amendment. agreements are concerned? If they cannot, it is even more important to have it in the Bill. I support Amendment 8. 8.15 pm Normally I stand next to my noble friend Lord Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My Alton in human rights Divisions—I see him now in Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party front of where I would be. However, on genocide, I Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, which may have part company with him, I am afraid. I am not an some relevance to this. I join with many other noble expert like our noble and learned friend Lord Hope or Lords in thanking those noble Lords who have tabled several others here, but I know that some of the and supported these amendments. I should warn the famous cases of genocide or ethnic cleansing have House that, in about the next minute of my contribution, foundered in the courts because of definition or I am going to be very concrete and graphic—this determination. Indeed, some flagrant ones will never needs a trigger warning for anyone who has been a be proved on that basis unless they fall under the victim of torture or abuse. simpler tests—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, talked This is an account provided by Ömir Bekali, a about these—of human rights violations that contravene Uighur Muslim from Xinjiang in the far south-west of the many international conventions mentioned in these China, the former owner of a small tourism business, amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, himself who spoke to the “Varsity” magazine in Cambridge in admitted that there were legal issues. October. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, The Uighur case is different, simply because China talked about the big picture of what is happening in will not discuss it and we have no leverage, even Xinjiang, but this is one man’s story. Ömir said: through international law, so in that sense it would be “They shackled my hands and put black fabric [over] my eyes a waste of time as a free-standing amendment in this … I feel my body tremble whenever I remember that moment … Bill. However, I fully acknowledge the benefits of My feet and my hands were tied up with iron shackles and they trade sanctions and any adverse publicity, which are beat my hands, they beat my feet … they beat my back and my bound to disfigure China’s international profile— stomach … They put needles in between my nails and my fingers”. and rightly so. We have not given up on Tibetans and After I have spoken, I will tweet a link to the report, we will not abandon the Uighurs or the people of which contains much more and worse than what I Hong Kong. have just put on the record. 1047 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1048

[BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE] away are those who reject this bargain. We have today The world has, sadly, been hearing reports of human a trade system built on the misery not of one but of rights abuses for decades, centuries and millennia. I millions. Will noble Lords reject that bargain? have to respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who suggested that these amendments would not help the Uighurs. What we are doing is Lord Lansley (Con): My Lords, I am glad to have an making sure that we do not go backwards from the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I inadequate but still existing controls that we have with thank the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury and regard to human rights and trade under our former Lord Alton of Liverpool, my noble friend Lord Blencathra EU membership. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord and other noble Lords for bringing forward amendments. Sandwich, who said that the calling out of human They give us an opportunity to consider some important rights abuse and putting it on to the international issues. I will talk about Amendments 8, 10 and 45, and agenda is crucially important in terms of influencing refer to Amendment 9. Having done so, I will not the behaviour of peoples and nations. speak on the next group. With Amendment 8, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, In the UK, we have often had the cover of saying, has set out an encompassing process for an examination “Perhaps little can be done in far-away places with few of the human rights situation in countries with which connections with over here, and there is little that we we might enter into international agreements. The list can do to help.” It was often the excuse—a very thin of agreements to be included at the end of his amendment and inadequate excuse—that that was only the word is very wide ranging indeed. Many of these agreements of one individual; it was not hard evidence of what would extend far beyond trade, but it is not criticised was happening. But that is not the case anymore, on that account; it is intended to be encompassing. because we now have satellite pictures of massive This is a very wide-ranging process on the route into so-called re-education camps, concentration camps or trade agreements, on the point at which they are laid straight-out prisons in Xinjiang. We have even, due to before and, if necessary, reported to this House and the globalisation of the economy,the occasional desperate subsequently in annual reports. note pleading for rescue from abusive forced labour falling from a holiday present into the living-room of The question that immediately comes to mind is a shocked British household. That is a practical what happens as a consequence. What happens is that demonstration of the fact that we know well: our one of the two Houses of Parliament has to do something trade, companies and society, and our prosperity, are about it. From listening to the debate, noble Lords inextricably linked in a crucial way to the economic have specific and sometimes compelling examples of structures that are fed by these abuses. Our economic the human rights abuses, violations and even—as structures and political arrangements all too regularly, Amendment 9 refers to—genocide that may be the either tacitly or even explicitly, condone or accept such responsibility of states with which we enter into behaviour. agreements. The first point to make is that we should be responsible for thinking in precise terms about I note that Amendment 8, in the name of the noble whether to enter into those kinds of agreement with Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has been criticised as those states and under those circumstances. We should being too weak, but it is a start and a step in the right not set up a wide-ranging, encompassing, endless process direction of acknowledging the link between trade of bureaucratic scrutiny but take responsibility for and human rights. Amendment 10, in the name of the determining with whom we have relationships, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, steps up to and links character of the relationships we enter into and whether with Amendment 9 that we will consider in the next to sustain them. group. The Green group will support them all. The That brings me to my second point, where I agree amendment provides a strong and clear focus on genocide, with my noble friend Lady Noakes: how can we abdicate even if it is limited in scope. that responsibility to the High Court? We have spent a Let us start here and see how far we can get. I lot of our time debating whether Parliament should would say to Members of your Lordships’ House that intervene in the Executive’s prerogative power to initiate, if you will not be joining the many Lords who have conduct and enter into trade agreements and treaties. said that they will back at least some of these steps, my Here we are discussing an amendment in which people question is this: what will you say to Ömir, who has seem to think that Parliament should not do that but spoken out bravely in the hope of action to protect hand responsibility to the High Court to determine people still in Xinjiang and people around the world whether we remain in an agreement or should revoke who are suffering human rights abuses? Choosing not an agreement that we have entered into. I cannot, for to do something is not a neutral act, but an active the life of me, see that it is right for Parliament to choice, a choice of morality, a choice about the kind of abdicate its responsibility to the High Court. world we all live in, now and in the future. In practice, I come back to how we have to take that responsibility ourselves. Everybody has talked about I am sure that many noble Lords will be familiar China, but the noble Lord, Lord Collins, made an with the short story by the late and brilliant Ursula K interesting speech illustrating this by reference to Egypt. Le Guin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”. I am not going to take a view on that today, because I For those who are not, it is about a wonderful, prosperous do not have the knowledge to argue that it is right or and flourishing city that relies for its prosperity entirely wrong to roll over the agreement with Egypt in the on the permanent misery and the deliberate abuse of way in which we intend, but the noble Lord asks the the human rights of a single child. Those who walk right question, in my view, at the right time. We have 1049 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1050 all the powers available to us to decide whether to We have separate debates over Turkey and Vietnam. enter into such an agreement. We do not need to When it comes to Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, we change the Bill to change that fact; it is a matter only know that those two countries have had year-long of looking at the circumstances of an individual agreement disputes over the definition of genocide within the with an individual counterparty, and asking whether international tribunals. I agree to an extent that, as the we should do it or not. noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, this is a grey Another thing to mention is the timing of this. area. That is not, however, a reason not to progress There is always, “If not now, when?” This is difficult into a framework to continue to seek improvements. because, yesterday, the Government initiated a review I hope the Minister does not mind if I remind of our own human rights legislation. Our Human him that he has twice been referred to in this way Rights Act requires that, if a court were to determine as a private citizen and business leader. As chair that we are acting in a way that is incompatible with of a British financial company he commended the the European Convention on Human Rights, it can authoritarianism of President Xi over protests in Hong make a declaration of incompatibility. Then Ministers Kong, stating that this ensured economic continuity in can make an order—they do not have to—to remediate Hong Kong and was in the UK’s interest. He has now that incompatibility. migrated from business leader to political leader. In many respects, that is illustrative of the challenges that 8.30 pm we all face about choices that we make in the business However,this amendment and, likewise, Amendment 9 community as well as the political community—it is seek to go much further. The High Court would not illustrative of this wider debate. make a declaration of incompatibility between our I serve on the International Relations Committee, international obligations or human rights commitments as does the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We said in our and the agreement that we have entered into—no, it report on the Middle East that the British Government can directly revoke it. It overrides not only the Executive were on the wrong side of international human rights but the legislature, and that cannot be right. It is my law in continuing to sell arms to Saudi Arabia as the view that the terms of reference of the independent Yemen tragedy ensued. We have high standards in this review encompass thinking about how we enter into country and I believe we are a force for good around international agreements, and treaties, and how those the world, but we should not delude ourselves about relate to our human rights obligations entered into how others see us: inventor of concentration camps, internationally. I would welcome my noble friend the holder of weapons of mass destruction and declarer Minister saying something on that. of illegal wars. I love my country, but I am not totally The extraterritoriality of our human rights legislation rose-tinted about our history. is part of the terms of reference of that independent Still, we have had a proud record post war as the review of our Human Rights Act. In the months noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. We have ahead, this should be the subject of that independent helped to shape international norms on human rights, review and we will come back to it. Inevitably, I in which we can take particular pride. One of the suspect, we will have legislation on human rights, and theatres where we have done so was in the European that is the time when we should consider precisely how context when we were a member of the European this Parliament should take that responsibility forward. Union. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, quite rightly said that a common approach on the use of political Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, it is a clauses was agreed in the European Union in 2009, to pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I remember very ensure that there would be systematic references of clearly the debate that he led in Committee. I think it human rights clauses in all agreements going forward. was just the two of us and the Minister in the Chamber, I will come back to that. shortly before midnight, when we debated a framework I want to make it very clear what I am calling for, so for human rights and trade. That is the point that he that the Minister understands that there is no equivocation: was trying to make, and I agree with him very strongly. a human rights and trade policy which has proper That is why I commend the noble Lord, Lord Collins, indicative measures and triggering mechanisms, so for tabling this amendment to try to persuade the that we can replace what we had within the European Government that there will be support if they bring context and have a distinct United Kingdom approach forward a trade and human rights policy that we can for all trade. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred engage in and work on with them. That is an appeal. I to proposed new subsection (6). I am pleased that the commend the noble Lord for bringing the amendment amendment outlined the breadth of the type of agreements forward and I am delighted to have added my name that we have. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to it. does not mind me saying that Amendment 9 would With regard to a list of countries, we are yet to roll have been strengthened if it had been more specific over an agreement with Algeria, which Freedom House about the areas which we will be covering. has classified as “not free” or similarly with Cameroon, The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about Egypt or Eswatini, which are also classified “not free”. what proposed new subsection (5)(d) means by some We would not engage in this with Syria—although if of those we were rolling over all agreements, that could include “other … violations of human rights … including … the International an agreement that did exist but is not in place because Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” the country is under sanction. We have arrangements One example is that we hold strongly to the view that with the Palestinian Authority, which Freedom House countries should not have the death sentence for people indicates is “not free”; Zimbabwe again is “not free”. who have a mental illness, or for children. That is 1051 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1052

[LORD PURVIS OF TWEED] the Government have not replicated it, that is, in my within the ICCPR and there should be no disagreement mind, a very clear signal that they are departing from that it is a serious human rights violation. If such a the approach that we had led up until now. violation is being practised, the question is what impact that should have on our trading relationships. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to calls from across the Chambers. We need a UK This is all about the trade relationships that we have Government impact assessment tool for the UK that through agreements, whether it is a full free trade is cross-departmental, including the Department of policy or one of the other agreements outlined in International Trade, the FCDO and BEIS, so that we proposed new subsection (6). Those all invariably can take a considered approach to human rights clauses involve preferential access for that third country to in our trade agreements, sanctions regimes on human our economy: preferential either because there is less rights from our Foreign Office, and, potentially,remedial tax or because they have access to our markets or acts from the Department for Business. Without a partnerships which we would deny to others except, in proper impact assessment tool, it is very hard for us to general, the WTO. As my noble friend Lady Smith consider this. We need mechanisms and we need asked: what value do we put on that preferential frameworks. I hope noble Lords do not mind me access? One part is economic; the second part is the saying so, but I believe that this is more important at value that we have for our wider rights. this stage in this Bill than simply referring to individual I return to the common approach in the European examples of human rights abuses around the world Union and the use of political clauses. The agreements that we know, to our shame, have existed. with third countries included human rights and they were all under what was termed “essential elements I hope that the Government will respond positively clauses”. Free trade agreements would be linked to the to Amendment 8 and, before Third Reading, set out political framework agreements with that country, clear draft human rights clauses for future trade encapsulating all the agreements that we have. If they agreements, draft trade and sustainability chapters, and did not exist in the framework, this would be included the mechanisms for escalating concerns around the specifically in a free trade agreement. I would be implications of human rights, and the mechanisms interested to know whether the Government believe that will then be triggered for us to judge not only that this is of merit too. Should we include our human whether we believe that the relationship should be rights element in our trading agreements, linked with questioned but what mechanisms can be put in place. At the other partnership agreements that we have with the end of the day, all of this is about the people and that country? Labour rights have been included in the victims. Unless we have a clear framework and a specific trade and sustainable development chapters. I clear position from the Government, we are letting those tried my hardest in Committee to get the Government people down in the countries with which we trade. to state their position on the inclusion and sustainable chapters in future agreements. They did not do so; I hope that the Minister can be clear about it today. Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con): My Lords, I The fact that there has been a standard approach thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for since 2009 meant that, during negotiations on agreements his Amendment 8. It touches on an important issue with countries, the EU was able to proactively assess that, as noble Lords know, this Government take very the overall positive and negative impacts on trade seriously and to which I would like to assure the agreements, including human rights, and the totality House I am personally committed. of the human rights record and domestic legal frameworks Before I address the amendment specifically, I want of that country. That informed the negotiations with to emphasise that the Government share the concerns those countries. It is not necessarily a case of seeking underpinning the amendments before us today. The to impose a legislative framework on that country, but UK has long supported the promotion of our values we assess what it is. At the very least, we determine globally and remains committed to our international how many international obligations, from labour rights obligations. We are clear that more trade does not to a whole set of legislative requirements on human have to come at the expense of human rights. I can rights, they have domesticated into their law. In the confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that in European context, it is interesting how many countries rolling over continuity agreements we are seeking to revised their domestic legislation during the process of deliver continuity of effect for agreements with all our negotiations with the EU,and domesticated international partners. I can confirm that we are not seeking a obligations—something they had not done up until continuity agreement with South Sudan. then. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I am Up until that point, most of the agreements had the sure he appreciates that I cannot comment on agreements ability to either pause or suspend. It is only in the presently still under negotiation. I have noted the recent EU-Canada agreement that, for the first time, point of my noble friend Lord Lansley on the ongoing there is a specific mechanism where, if there is a gross human rights review,and I will make sure it is considered. violation of human rights, or non-proliferation, that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we seek could serve as grounds for termination of the entire to ensure that human rights are recognised and protected agreement. We will get into this in the next group, but in all our free trade agreements. This includes clauses given that this is the first time, I would like to know in our trade agreements with many developing and from the Minister whether that element has been emerging markets, suspensive powers in our trade replicated in the UK-Canada agreement? If it has, it preferences regime, and recourse to trade levers through would be the first time that the UK has done this. If our sanction policy. 1053 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1054

Turning to the amendment in hand, tabled by the This could give the High Court the power to terminate noble Lord, Lord Collins, I am sure the noble Lord the UK’s membership of the WTO if any single WTO will be pleased to hear that the Government are already member were found to have committed abuses. An delivering on some of the commitments that his extreme example, perhaps, but it is important to be amendment seeks. For instance, the amendment seeks clear that it would not be possible to revoke agreements publication of an annual report. My department has in a way that targeted only the country held to have already committed to publish an annual report on our committed genocide or human rights abuses. The entire programme of trade activity, and we can certainly agreement would be affected. This is a very serious explore whether that report could be used for the legal defect, and so noble Lords will understand why purposes envisaged here. the Government must strongly oppose it. However, there are a number of concerns and legal Given the ongoing wide range of activities the risks raised by the amendment from the noble Lord, Government continue to undertake on human rights, I Lord Collins, which means that we are unable to hope that the noble Lord will be reassured of the support it. It would constrain the royal prerogative seriousness that the Government accord to this issue powers to negotiate, ratify and withdraw from treaties. and that he, and other noble Lords, will continue to Of course,curtailing the royal prerogative is not something work with us on this agenda. In the light of the legal that the Government would do lightly. difficulties, the unintended consequences and other risks outline above, I therefore ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments. 8.45 pm The inclusion of alleged violations, as well as actual Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): I thank the Minister violations, would make it very difficult to compile the for his response. I also thank all noble Lords who reports envisaged in the amendment. What criteria contributed to this debate. I say straightaway to the would there be for determining whether an allegation noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I am pleased that needs to be included? How is evidence meant to be on this fundamental issue of principle we are agreed, gathered with respect to such allegations, particularly and I think that that applies across the House. It has when such evidence likely resides mainly in the territory been a very positive debate, even where we have disagreed. of the trading partner? I apologise for dealing in practicalities, but it is my responsibility to put these The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is absolutely practicalities before you. These are fundamental questions right that I am committed to trade, but we are not to which there are clearly no easy answers, and they talking about stopping trade; as the noble Lord, Lord should be considered before your Lordships seek to Purvis, said, we are talking about preferential place this amendment into legislation. arrangements and agreements, going out there and seeking special agreements to enhance trade and to do The amendment also foresees potential termination more. As I said at the beginning of the debate, we are of a trade agreement in the event that reports produced following a principle that has already been adopted, by the Government indicated that serious human rights and we want to make sure that we have a proper violations have occurred in a trading partner country. process. The fundamental issue here is how Parliament Termination of any trade agreement would be an scrutinises the actions of government, particularly on extraordinaryactionandwouldentailsignificanteconomic this important point of principle. disruption, as well as legal, diplomatic and political I will not take up the House’s time too much; I just risks. want to come back to what the Minister said. He said This brings me to Amendments 10 and 45, which that on the one hand, “We are already doing what you are also directed at termination of trading arrangements. seek”; on the other hand, he said, “There are fundamental These amendments seek to give the High Court of problems with what you’re trying to argue for.” The England and Wales powers to revoke trade agreements noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that now is not the where the court holds that another signatory to the time and that there are issues here that we need to relevant agreement has committed serious human rights address elsewhere. I disagree. I think that this is absolutely abuses, in the case of Amendment 10. We have many the time. When the United Kingdom is about to leave problems with this approach, but I will detail the two the European Union, it is very important that we most serious. commit ourselves to clear processes that allow for First—and I know this has been recognised by proper parliamentary scrutiny. some noble Lords—the approach strikes at the heart I tend to agree with some of the concerns about the of the separation of powers. It would give the High intervention of the courts, but at the end of the day Court the power to frustrate unilaterally trade agreements there is a clear separation of power here. If Parliament entered into and implemented by the Government and decrees and the Government fail to act within the ratified by Parliament. Parliament would remain sovereign, requirements of Parliament, our courts have a right to but it would require primary legislation to reverse the intervene. That is our constitutional position, although court’s decision effectively and, in the meantime, that I would hope that no Government would ever breach could result in significant damage to relationships the commitments they have given to Parliament. That with trade partners. is why I think that my amendment, signed by the noble Secondly,withrespecttomynoblefriendLordBlencathra’s Lords,Lord Alton and Lord Purvis,and the right reverend amendment specifically, this would enable courts to Prelate, is so important. We need that clear process. revoke plurilateral or multilateral trade agreements I am afraid that the Minister has failed to give us altogether, even if only one of the signatories to the the assurances that we want, so I want to test the agreement had committed an abuse of human rights. opinion of the House. 1055 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1056

8.52 pm Henig, B. Pinnock, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Pitkeathley, B. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 8 Hollick, L. Prescott, L. Hollins, B. Primarolo, B. Hope of Craighead, L. Prosser, B. Contents 297; Not-Contents 221. Howarth of Newport, L. Purvis of Tweed, L. Hoyle, L. Puttnam, L. Amendment 8 agreed. Hughes of Stretford, B. Quin, B. Humphreys, B. Radice, L. Division No. 3 Hunt of Bethnal Green, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Randerson, B. Hussain, L. Ravensdale, L. CONTENTS Hussein-Ece, B. Razzall, L. Adonis, L. Colville of Culross, V. Inglewood, L. Rebuck, B. Alderdice, L. Cooper of Windrush, L. Jolly, B. Redesdale, L. Allan of Hallam, L. Corston, B. Jones of Cheltenham, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Alli, L. Cotter, L. Jones of Moulsecoomb, B. Rennard, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. Coussins, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Amos, B. Crawley, B. Jones, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Anderson of Ipswich, L. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Jordan, L. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Davies of Brixton, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Rooker, L. Andrews, B. Davies of Oldham, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. Rosser, L. Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Desai, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Rowlands, L. Ashton of Upholland, B. Dholakia, L. Kerslake, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Austin of Dudley, L. Donaghy, B. Kidron, B. Sandwich, E. Bach, L. Donoughue, L. Knight of Weymouth, L. Sawyer, L. Bakewell of Hardington Doocey, B. Kramer, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Mandeville, B. Drake, B. Laming, L. Scriven, L. Bakewell, B. D’Souza, B. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Sharkey, L. Barker, B. Dubs, L. Layard, L. Sheehan, B. Bassam of Brighton, L. Eames, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Sherlock, B. Beecham, L. Eatwell, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Shinkwin, L. Beith, L. Elder, L. Lennie, L. Shipley, L. Benjamin, B. Evans of Watford, L. Levy, L. Sikka, L. Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Simon, V. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Featherstone, B. Liddle, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Bichard, L. Field of Birkenhead, L. Lipsey, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Billingham, B. Filkin, L. Lister of Burtersett, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Blackstone, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Loomba, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Blencathra, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Ludford, B. Snape, L. Blunkett, L. Foster of Bath, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Soley, L. Boateng, L. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Somerset, D. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Fox, L. L. Stern of Brentford, L. B. Freyberg, L. Mallalieu, B. Stern, B. Boothroyd, B. Gale, B. Manchester, Bp. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Garden of Frognal, B. Mandelson, L. Stone of Blackheath, L. Bowness, L. Gardner of Parkes, B. Mann, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Boycott, B. German, L. Manningham-Buller, B. Storey, L. Bradley, L. Giddens, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Strasburger, L. Bradshaw, L. Glasgow, E. Massey of Darwen, B. Stunell, L. Bragg, L. Glasman, L. McAvoy, L. Suttie, B. Brinton, B. Goddard of Stockport, L. McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Taverne, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Golding, B. L. Taylor of Bolton, B. Brown of Cambridge, B. Goldsmith, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Taylor of Goss Moor, L. Brown of Eaton-under- Goudie, B. McIntosh of Pickering, B. Teverson, L. Heywood, L. Grabiner, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. Thomas of Cwmgiedd, L. Browne of Ladyton, L. Grantchester, L. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Bruce of Bennachie, L. Greaves, L. Meacher, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Bryan of Partick, B. Green of Hurstpierpoint, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Thornhill, B. Bull, B. Grender, B. B. Thornton, B. Burnett, L. Grey-Thompson, B. Mitchell, L. Thurso, V. Burt of Solihull, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Tonge, B. Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Grocott, L. Morgan of Huyton, B. Tope, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Hain, L. Morris of Aberavon, L. Triesman, L. Canterbury, Abp. Hamwee, B. Morris of Yardley, B. Truscott, L. Carey of Clifton, L. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Murphy of Torfaen, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Carlile of Berriew, L. Hanworth, V. Newby, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Carter of Coles, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Northover, B. Tyler, L. Cashman, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Nye, B. Uddin, B. Chakrabarti, B. Harris of Richmond, B. Oates, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L. Chandos, V. Haskel, L. O’Loan, B. Verjee, L. Clancarty, E. Haughey, L. O’Neill of Gatley, L. Walker of Aldringham, L. Clark of Calton, B. Haworth, L. Osamor, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Clark of Kilwinning, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. Paddick, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Clark of Windermere, L. Hayman, B. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Walmsley, B. Clement-Jones, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. Parekh, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Cohen of Pimlico, B. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. Parminter, B. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Collins of Highbury, L. Helic, B. Patel of Bradford, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. 1057 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1058

Watts, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Rotherwick, L. Wheatcroft, B. Winston, L. Manzoor, B. Saatchi, L. Wheeler, B. Woodley, L. Marlesford, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Whitaker, B. Maude of Horsham, L. Worcester, Bp. Sarfraz, L. Whitty, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and Worthington, B. Sassoon, L. Wigley, L. Cookstown, L. Sater, B. Wrigglesworth, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Willis of Knaresborough, L. McLoughlin, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L. Wills, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Mendoza, L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Meyer, B. Sheikh, L. Mobarik, B. NOT CONTENTS Montrose, D. Shephard of Northwold, B. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Aberdare, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Shields, B. Agnew of Oulton, L. Farmer, L. Morrow, L. Shrewsbury, E. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Faulks, L. Moylan, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Moynihan, L. St John of Bletso, L. Arbuthnot of Edrom, L. Fink, L. Nash, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Arran, E. Finkelstein, L. Neville-Jones, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Finn, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Astor of Hever, L. Fleet, B. Newlove, B. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Balfe, L. Fox of Buckley, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Sugg, B. Barran, B. Framlingham, L. B. Suri, L. Barwell, L. Freud, L. Noakes, B. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Berridge, B. Fullbrook, B. Northbrook, L. Taylor of Warwick, L. Bertin, B. Gadhia, L. Norton of Louth, L. Tebbit, L. Bethell, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. O’Shaughnessy, L. Thurlow, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Garnier, L. Pannick, L. Trefgarne, L. Blackwell, L. Geddes, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Trenchard, V. Bloomfield of Hinton Gilbert of Panteg, L. Patel, L. True, L. Waldrist, B. Gold, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L. Tugendhat, L. Borwick, L. Goldie, B. Penn, B. Tyrie, L. Bottomley of Nettlestone, B. Goschen, V. Pidding, B. Ullswater, V. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Grade of Yarmouth, L. Polak, L. Vaizey of Didcot, L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Greenhalgh, L. Popat, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Brady, B. Greenway, L. Price, L. Verma, B. Bridgeman, V. Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Rana, L. Vinson, L. Bridges of Headley, L. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Wakeham, L. Brookeborough, V. Hague of Richmond, L. Ranger, L. Waverley, V. Brougham and Vaux, L. Hailsham, V. Rawlings, B. Wei, L. Browning, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Reay, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Hammond of Runnymede, L. Redfern, B. Whitby, L. L. Haselhurst, L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Buscombe, B. Hay of Ballyore, L. Ridley, V. Wilson of Tillyorn, L. Caine, L. Hayward, L. Risby, L. Wyld, B. Caithness, E. Herbert of South Downs, L. Robathan, L. Young of Cookham, L. Callanan, L. Hill of Oareford, L. Rock, B. Young of Graffham, L. Cameron of Dillington, L. Hoey, B. Rose of Monewden, L. Younger of Leckie, V. Carrington of Fulham, L. Hogg, B. Carrington, L. Holmes of Richmond, L. 9.05 pm Cathcart, E. Hooper, B. Cavendish of Furness, L. Horam, L. The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con): My Lords, Chadlington, L. Howard of Lympne, L. we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 9. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Howard of Rising, L. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the Chisholm of Owlpen, B. Howe, E. mover and the Minister may speak only once and that Choudrey, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Colgrain, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone Colwyn, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Courtown, E. Johnson of Marylebone, L. Division should make that clear in debate. Couttie, B. Jopling, L. Craigavon, V. Kakkar, L. Crathorne, L. Keen of Elie, L. Amendment 9 Cumberlege, B. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Dannatt, L. Kilclooney, L. Moved by Lord Alton of Liverpool Davies of Gower, L. King of Bridgwater, L. 9: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— De Mauley, L. Kirkham, L. “Agreements with states accused of committing genocide Deech, B. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Deighton, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. (1) International bilateral trade agreements are revoked if Devon, E. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. the High Court of England and Wales makes a preliminary Dobbs, L. Lang of Monkton, L. determination that they should be revoked on the ground Dodds of Duncairn, L. Lansley, L. that another signatory to the relevant agreement represents Duncan of Springbank, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. a state which has committed genocide under Article II of Dunlop, L. Lexden, L. the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Eaton, B. Lindsay, E. Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, following an Eccles of Moulton, B. Lingfield, L. application to revoke an international bilateral trade Eccles, V. Liverpool, E. agreement on this ground from a person or group of Empey, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. persons belonging to a national, ethnic, racial or religious Erroll, E. Lothian, M. group, or an organisation representing such a group, Evans of Bowes Park, B. Lucas, L. which has been the subject of that genocide. 1059 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1060

(2) This section applies to genocides which occur after this determinations on genocide is preferable to other legal section comes into force, and to those considered by the avenues. Pursuing such claims through international High Court to have been ongoing at the time of its courts has proven ineffective. The amendment provides coming into force.” a respected means to assessing genocide, allowing the UK to live up to its legal commitments on genocide. Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, the House He is right. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has already heard some of the arguments explored in added that future trade deals may not be subject to the preceding group of amendments. The House will parliamentary scrutiny, so it is imperative that the be relieved to know that I will not rehearse them all Government decide now to rule out deals with perpetrators again. of genocide. Not for the first time, the noble Baroness Amendment 9 straightforwardly asks the House to is right. give the High Court of England and Wales the My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, opportunity to make a predetermination of genocide who has a lifetime of experience in the highest reaches if it believes that the evidence substantiates the high of the law, said in a hugely important speech in threshold set out in the 1948 UN Convention on the Committee that there is inadequacy in the judicial Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, architecture currently in place. In comparing the genocide to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. I am convention with the convention on torture, he said: grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine “The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide now seems, with hindsight, to be a and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—the other sponsors deplorably weak instrument for dealing with the challenges we of this all-party amendment—to Peers from all parts face today … we can now see, in today’s world, how ineffective of the House and to the Coalition for Genocide Response, and perhaps naive this relatively simple convention is.” notably its co-founders, Luke de Pulford and Ewelina The noble and learned Lord said that the amendment Ochab. would During the preceding debate we heard three things “allow for due process in a hearing in full accordance with the about Amendment 9 which I would like to deal with rule of law.” immediately. The first was from the Minister, the It would “achieve its object” and result noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. He has now retreated to the Back Benches after the exhaustion of the last few “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 hours and we welcome the noble Viscount to his place applicant’s favour will carry real weight, quite apart from the to answer this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, effect it will have on the relevant agreement.”—[Official Report, talked about the separation of powers. I remind the 13/10/20; cols. 1037-38.] House that in the case of genocide, whenever the He said that the route we have chosen in this amendment Government speak on this issue in this House, we has his “full support”and would be “a big step forward”. always say that it is a matter for the courts. This is the same Government. They say that there is a separation Just three weeks ago, we marked 75 years since the of power and indeed, recently said that the recognition Nuremberg trials. Sir Hartley Shawcross, later a Member of genocide of your Lordships’ House, was the Labour Member of Parliament for St Helens and the lead British prosecutor “is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies.”—[Official Report, 13/10/20; col. 1042.] at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. In his closing I gently say to the Minister, and the noble Lord, speech at Nuremburg, Shawcross remarked that when Lord Lansley, that the Government’s position is that “some individual is killed, the murder becomes a sensation, our the courts make the determination about genocide. compassion is aroused, nor do we rest until the criminal is punished and the rule of law is vindicated. Shall we do less when That is not to say that Parliament should not have a not one but … 12 million men, women, and children, are done to view about these things—I agree with what the noble death? Not in battle, not in passion, but in the cold, calculated, Lord, Lord Collins, said earlier about the role of the deliberate attempt to destroy nations and races”. courts. I would also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross reminded his generation that such tyranny Noakes, who has left the Back Benches but may be and brutality, such genocides, could only be resisted in viewing from elsewhere, that this is not about virtue the future not by signalling. This is about virtuous behaviour. If we … … cannot stand up on the crime of genocide and say that “military alliances, but firmly in the rule of law.” once evidence has been placed before the courts, it is Yet we all know how regularly such horrors have shown to be credible and they make a predetermination, recurred while the law we put in place in 1948 has been we will not then, in those circumstances, stop trading honoured only in its breach. with that country, in what circumstances would we do I will unpack the vicious circle that the amendment so? There is a clear issue here on this narrow point of seeks to break. Over the past 20 years, I have raised the genocide. That is why this amendment is different issue of genocide on 300 occasions in speeches or from those that have preceded it. It is about one Parliamentary Questions in your Lordships’ House. question: the crime above all crimes. I realise that As recently as 5 November, I asked the Government some noble Lords who would not have been able to whether they intended to follow the example of Canadian vote on the earlier amendment support this amendment parliamentarians in designating actions by the because it is so carefully constructed and defined. Government of China against their Uighur population Three speeches were made in Committee that explain to be a genocide, and what plans they had, if any, to the thinking behind this amendment very well. The enable an appropriate judicial authority to consider noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, rightly the same evidence and to reach a determination on said that enabling the UK High Court to make legal this matter. 1061 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1062

In reply, I was given the usual circular argument There can be no clearer statement that the United that the Government’s policy is not to make such Kingdom places its values above trade than making it determinations themselves but—and I say this gently clear that we are not content to strike deals with to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—to leave it to the genocidal states. courts, knowing that the International Criminal Court Let me finish my remarks by recalling again the would require a referral from the Security Council and challenge laid down 75 years ago at Nuremberg by that, in this case, China would veto any attempt to Sir Hartley Shawcross. For 70 years, we have failed to hold it to account by the International Criminal Court. recognise our wholly inadequate response to those I say gently to my good and noble friend Lord challenges. Tonight, we have a chance to put that Sandwich, responding to his remarks in the earlier right. I intend to ask the House to vote on this group of amendments, that this amendment does not amendment, unless the Government are prepared to seek to carry out criminal prosecutions in the High say that they will come forward with an amendment at Court of England and Wales. If it did, it would have to Third Reading to deal specifically with the issue of overcome all sorts of obstacles to bring about a genocide or will do so in another place. prosecution. This amendment seeks to establish whether No doubt we will be told, as we so often are, that there is sufficient evidence available. We heard some of this is the wrong amendment, that it is technically it from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor defective, that it is the wrong Bill, or that it is the Castle, in her intervention on the last group. Is there wrong time. We are always told those things. It is sufficient evidence for a predetermination to be made? always the wrong time; it is always the wrong Bill. The That is the point: this is not about a criminal prosecution; amendments are never perfect, but the whole point is it is about whether there is evidence that can be that, week in, week out, I have been urging the established in the High Court of England and Wales. Government to sit down with us and with some of the most celebrated lawyers in this country,who are esteemed 9.15 pm in their knowledge of human rights law and who, Before lockdown, I went to northern Iraq. I met through the Coalition for Genocide Response, circulated Yazidi and Christian leaders who told me, “What as recently as this morning a long brief setting out why happened to us was way beyond imagination”. It is this is a viable amendment and why any refinements not beyond our imagination—quite the reverse. In that are needed can easily be rectified if there is good March 2016, my noble friend Lady Cox, the noble will on the part of the Government. Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble By sending this amendment to the House of Commons, Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I specifically moved an where I know that it has support on both sides of the amendment calling for the evidence we presented during Chamber—notably from the former leader of the that debate—of horrific genocidal acts being carried Conservative Party, Sir Iain Duncan Smith—I know out against Yazidis, Christians and other minorities—to that we will ensure that something good will come out be laid before the High Court and for a judge to of our debate tonight and out of the effort that so determine whether those atrocities were part of a many noble Lords have put into this issue. It will give genocide, which would, of course, have required an the other House a chance to engage and remedy any appropriate response from the Government. The deficiencies in drafting. Tonight, we should not hesitate Government opposed the amendment and I hardly in affirming the principle that we will not trade with need remind the House of what occurred. countries judged by our High Court to be mired in During my visit to northern Iraq, I met some of the genocide. I beg to move. families whose girls had been abducted, raped and enslaved. Some of them are still refugees, having seen neighbours slaughtered and homes confiscated. In Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]: My every case that I have ever raised, going right back for Lords,it is with great pride that I support this amendment. 20 years—20 years ago, I raised what was happening As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just said, he at the hands of the Burmese military in the Karen and I have been involved in discussions around this State, which I had gone into illegally, and was told that crime for some time, and we have engaged with some it was not a matter we could deal with here—I have of our most senior lawyers and judges on how it can always received the same reply. I remind the House of be addressed. what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said: that the Genocide is the most serious crime in global law; recognition of genocide for that reason, it stands apart and is distinct and “is a matter for judicial decision … rather than for governments singular. The term was first coined by Raphael Lemkin or non-judicial bodies.” in 1944; he was a Polish Jewish lawyer who was Yet, as my noble and learned friend told us in Committee, undoubtedly absolutely bereft as he watched the horrors the international judicial system is not functioning as of the Holocaust and its atrocities unfold. He also intended. drew on the history of previous instances in which This is not about ceding power from Parliament to entire nations or ethnic or religious peoples had been the courts, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right destroyed. His urgency was a new legal suggestion, to remind us. This is not about the widespread ceding and, although it was mentioned at the Nuremberg of powers; this is about a very narrow area. This is trials, it was mentioned in descriptive terms rather about genocide and a policy that is already the position than as a legal term. It was immediately after the of the Government. It is depoliticising a decision that Second World War that genocide was coded as an Governments of all persuasions have hesitated to make. independent crime under international law, in the 1948 Limiting the clause to genocide is also proportionate. Genocide Convention. That came into force on 12 January 1063 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1064

[BARONESS KENNEDY OF THE SHAWS] moment in the development of law—a role that Britain 1951; 12 January 2021 will be its 70th anniversary. has often played. If passed into law, in time many Think how fine it would be for us to be a nation that other nations would follow suit. It is a way of giving had just put some teeth into the law against this most teeth to international law. One of the questions we egregious of crimes. have always asked has been, how do you make The legal definition of genocide is precise and international law have an impact? How do you get includes an element that is very hard to prove: intent things before a court when we have a Security Council to commit genocide. This is a very high bar and an bound up with nations that will never agree to matters evidential hurdle that is great; this is something of getting before certain courts? What we are seeking to which those of us who practice law in this field are all do here is really to make a new development in law, too conscious. It involves efforts to exterminate and which will undoubtedly be copied by other nations dehumanise a people—a whole set of people. You and signals the importance we attach to this crime have already heard the horrors experienced by the above all crimes. We are going to see it on our statute Uighurs described in this House. I declare immediately books as a way of giving it pre-eminence in the world. that I co-chair the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on I have no doubt that other states will replicate it. China—IPAC—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I cannot bear the expression, “virtue signalling”. I have travelled to the refugee camps where the Yazidis Yes, we will be signalling something about our values. give accounts of the most horrifying events that have We will be signalling that we will not stand by and do taken place to that people. Witnessing and knowing business and trade with countries that are destroying about the detail of genocide can only convince decent, whole peoples. That is something we should be proud good people that we have to try to find ways of to be taking a stance on. Let us please extinguish that making this a crime that has no place in this world. ghastly expression “virtue signalling”from the language, because we should be taking stances that show we can The noble Lord, Lord Alton, explained the purposes express our values and our virtues, without any snide of this amendment: the genocide amendment. Its purpose grandstanding by onlookers who are not prepared is to ensure that there is a preliminary determination to act. by the High Court, not any lower court, as to whether I urge this House to vote for this amendment if the there is genocide. It is pre-emptive: the whole purpose Government do not agree to it. I really want them to of the Genocide Convention was to prevent genocide agree to it, because, as I say, genocide is a crime above by placing a duty on nations to act to prevent it. I will all others and we should not demur in our commitment say immediately what this genocide amendment is not: to seeing it end. it is not, to use the language of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, an effort to swamp the courts. The bar is so high that such a case could not possibly be Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]: My Lords, it is brought before the High Court of this country and a very great pleasure to support this amendment, have any serious reception if it were not presented following the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord with a whole body of evidence that was highly persuasive Alton. He reminded us that this is not the first time we and involved eminent lawyers who could testify to the have discussed this matter. I took part in a debate with bar having been passed on the definition of genocide. him on such an amendment back in March 2016, What else is it not? It is certainly not a breach of the almost five years ago. The noble Lord has raised this separation of powers—a constitutional issue—because, issue on more than 300 occasions, ably supported, as of course, no court will be determining that a trade he was back in March, by the noble Baroness, Lady agreement has to be revoked. It would be for the court Cox, for whom I have the most enormous admiration. to determine whether the bar had been met—that is, At a time last week when, thanks to the First Minister, whether events documented a genocide that needed to it was difficult for me to get beyond my garden gate, be prevented. That preliminary determination of the the noble Baroness was visiting yet another war zone. courts would then, of course, have great import for The whole House should be extremely proud of both any Government committed to human rights and their the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, treaty obligations on genocide. One would expect any Lady Cox, who is speaking later in this debate, and the such Government then to revoke a trade agreement. indefatigable energy which they have shown in pursuing All our trade agreements going forward would contain this cause. I therefore join with the noble Baroness, a clause indicating that, if there were a determination Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, and other noble Lords by the High Court, this would be the basis on which from across the House in supporting this amendment, an agreement could be revoked. in order to send a clear message once and for all that we as a nation will not be complicit in genocide. The final thing that this is not is that it is not about This amendment introduces a mechanism to equip determining the liability of individuals for criminal a competent court to make an interim determination offences. That is not what the High Court would be of genocide. It provides for what is a novel, I accept, doing in this case at all. Individual determinations of but crucial approach in effectively responding to genocide, criminality would not be before the court and would especially as Governments of all shades have lamentably not be determined by the court. failed in their duty to respond as horrific genocides What does this amendment do? It creates new law; have unfolded. When we had the debate in March we are not pretending that this is not novel. It is, 2016, I spoke about the horrors facing Yazidis and clearly and distinctly, something new. We have no Christian minorities—people who use the language of doubt, given the interest shown in it by international our saviour, of Christ himself—and we were unable to lawyers from other nations, that it would be a great reach out and help them. I asked how much longer we 1065 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1066 were prepared to stand by and not acknowledge what I draw the attention of the House to the work being was going on, which was a systematic attempt to done in the United States concerning the linkage of destroy Christianity throughout the Middle East. business and mass atrocities. In September this year, US Customs and Border Protection issued several 9.30 pm withhold release orders for goods produced in China, More recently, I have spoken, along with many including products produced in Xinjiang. These orders other Members of this House, about the atrocities prevent goods being imported into the United States faced by the Uighurs in China. In neither case have the when made with forced labour. In mid-October 2020, Government used the word “genocide” because of the US Government announced that they were launching their long-standing position that such a determination a co-ordinated response, including the closing off of should be made by a competent court and not politicians. opportunities to do business in the United States for While, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has pointed companies that do not respect human rights. out, that proposition is debatable and poses questions, All those measures and the ones we are proposing the amendment we are discussing today responds to today send a much stronger message to the CCP’s the Government’s position by mandating a competent officials than any diplomatic engagements, which do court—the High Court of England and Wales—to not even begin to scratch the surface. The amendment make such an interim determination. before us today would put in place a mechanism that made it clear that we are no longer content to mouth I usually agree very much with my noble friend superficial platitudes and repeat tired old slogans such Lady Noakes, but to accuse me and others of virtue as “Never again”. As the noble and learned Lord and signalling borders on offensive. I hope that, on reflection, former Supreme Court judge, Lord Hope of Craighead, she will recognise that this is not virtue signalling but has told us, from a legal and practical point of view trying to do something about the extermination of the amendment will work. Reviews and committees people across the globe because of their beliefs. may also have their place but are weak tea by comparison. I want briefly to comment on the Government’s As a nation, we cannot do business with states position of leaving the question of genocide determination engaged in genocide. Waiting for determination by to international judicial bodies—an argument which I international judicial bodies—ships that never come have no doubt will be deployed yet again. When we in—and in the meantime doing business as usual simply talk about genocide determination, we do not mean a cannot be accepted any more, not in the 21st century. I final determination in a criminal trial against an individual, support the amendment, for it will give the House of whether by domestic or international criminal courts, Commons—the elected House—an opportunity to as this does indeed have to be done by competent decide on this matter, and I invite others to do the courts, following procedure with the relevant criminal same. thresholds. When referring to genocide determination, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who has far more expertise on these matters than I have, has made The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con): I call the clear, we mean an interim determination made by next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and I relevant bodies that would inform the Government’s will then call the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. response to such atrocities, including whether to trigger any of the duties under the UN Convention on the Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB): My Lords, it Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. is a real pleasure, as the fourth person to have put my As the International Court of Justice, in its judgment name to the amendment, to speak after the wonderful in Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro speeches that we have just heard—most notably, that clarifies, the “obligation to prevent” arises of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has been steadfast on this issue for many years. “at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be Every now and then, two or three times a century, committed. From that moment onwards, if the State has available nations are measured in international affairs for what to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of they did or did not do. In the writing of the history of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific the United Kingdom in our era, Brexit is expected to intent (dolus specialis), it is under a duty to make such use of these take centre stage, but we do not know at this stage means as the circumstances permit.” whether in the long run it will prove to have been a I understand the Government believe they already canny move, giving us flexibility to adapt to a new have all the relevant mechanisms in place, but that is world, or an ill-thought-through wail of frustration at not the case. Indeed, in failing to assess the risk of globalisation. Some of the tally of the UK’s actions at genocide in situations of concern, the United Kingdom this time will stand out; others, mercifully, will be could itself be accused of being in breach of its forgotten. obligations under the genocide convention. In this amendment, if passed by this place and The amendment responds to the finding of the ICJ agreed to by the other place, we can see a stand-out judgment, in that the interim genocide determination moment—standing out and standing by a relatively will enable the Government to learn of the serious risk small religious group that is subject to a crime against of genocide being committed and respond by revoking humanity: genocide. At a time when we know that it is the trade agreement with the state. This might, at the happening—when we have the technology, the resources very minimum, have some deterrent effect on perpetrators, and the testimony of survivors that tell us of such who will start to understand that genocide cannot egregious practices—for us to profess ignorance would mean business as usual. Business matters when it be nothing less than condoning China’s behaviour comes to addressing mass atrocities. against its Uighurs Muslims in Xinjiang. 1067 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1068

[BARONESS FALKNER OF MARGRAVINE] Baroness Northover (LD) [V]: I thank the noble I and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have spoken over Lords who have brought forward this amendment. several years in this Chamber about the atrocities The House has heard the passion, as ever, of the noble committed against the Uighurs. I almost feel that I am Lord, Lord Alton, on this terrible issue, and they have repeating myself every time I stand up to make this heard the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady kind of speech, but I am not, as every time I look at Kennedy, who has made the legal case with great the subject and the detail of what we know today, as authority. opposed to what we knew last month or last year, I can I feel that the noble Viscount has drawn the short see that things are getting worse. straw in being expected to respond. Having been a China is running a gulag worthy of the description Member of this House for a number of years and a of the Soviet gulags by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, except Minister for most of the last decade, he will surely that from what we now know in real time, not in know to cross out of his speech all those statements retrospect, it is much worse. From 2015, we learned of that are put in as standard: that it is not necessary to detention camps from seeing satellite images. There have this on the face of the Bill, and that there are were Chinese denials. Then, in 2018, the Chinese problems with the drafting of the amendment. He will Government stopped denying their existence when the know that what is critical is the essence of an amendment, evidence was irrefutable and declared that they were and there cannot be anything more important than “vocational education and training camps”. In these this. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, it is camps in Xinjiang, inmates are asked to renounce the not enough to say “Never again”, as was said after the Koran and their belief in God and to profess belief Nazi genocide: the 20th century saw other genocides in—you could not make this up—″Xi Jinping thought”. and we still do, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has said. I am sure that none of us would ever wish to According to the Economist, guards ask prisoners if have a trade agreement with a country that is practising there is a God and beat those who say that there is. I genocide, but can we be sure? think that I am the only Muslim speaking in this debate. I can tell noble Lords that it is impossible for a Muslim to renounce God, since the acknowledgment 9.45 pm of God’s existence is the foundational principle of Moreover, as others have pointed out, declaring being a Muslim. While getting a daily beating may not something a genocide requires the agreement of those sound egregious, Muslims will not go there—they will who may well have an interest in not agreeing that it is not sign up to “Xi Jinping” thought if it involves the case. For decades, as has been said, the policy of giving up God. It is something for which they will be the United Kingdom Government has been that only prepared to die—and they are dying. international judicial bodies should determine whether Then there is the sterilisation of Uighur women. In genocide has occurred. Currently, the United Kingdom parts of Xinjiang, the Uighur birth rate fell by 60% does not have any formal mechanism for genocide between 2015 and 2018. There is, furthermore, the determination, yet it has proactive responsibilities under forced transfer of people to undertake forced labour—in the genocide convention. detention, with watchtowers to prevent them escaping I will not go into the challenges of ensuring that, their factory dormitories.This persecution of the Uighurs when genocide is occurring, it is identified as such is a crime against humanity systematically imposed by without delay, given the lateness of the hour and the a state—a Government—that brooks no internal fact that people are familiar with the problems. This opposition. It is the most extensive violation in the amendment could help the United Kingdom fulfil its world today of the principle that individuals have a duties under the genocide convention. I am sure the right to liberty and dignity simply because of their Minister will reject it, but I hope to see, when and if humanity—because they are people. this amendment is passed, the Government engage on how the essence of this is finally to be taken forward. This amendment abrogates trade deals—revokes them, as it says—if the other signatory, according to a High Court ruling, is a state that has committed Lord Cormack (Con): My Lords, I echo the final genocide. It is needed in this Bill because no party to words of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the genocide convention should be doing business implore my noble friend on the Front Bench to heed with China while it continues to perpetrate this crime. what she said. If we pass this, we in the United Kingdom will be I will begin on a personal note: 75 years ago, at the refusing to stand idly by and to elevate commerce time of the VE celebrations, my parents took me, a six above conscience. Not to pass it would be a shame. If year-old boy, to see newsreels. Among them was Belsen. we decide to pass it, it will represent us as a beacon of My mother’s instinctive reaction was to put her arm in liberty in one of our first acts as a sovereign nation. front of my eyes; my father’s reaction was to sit me on The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, spoke of the his knee and say, “The boy must see what evil people 70th anniversary of the genocide convention. Other can do.” It is one of my earliest and most vivid noble Lords have referred to international institutions, memories. as, no doubt, will the Minister, in his closing speech. I As a newly elected Member of the other place, remind the House that we cannot leave this to other 25 years later, at the invitation of the late Greville bodies when there is the disgrace—I go so far as to say Janner, whose memory I honour, I became the first the obscenity—of China being elected to the United chairman of the all-party group—there were very few Nations Human Rights Council. The time has come: in those days—for the release of Soviet Jewry. I spoke we have to act. on the telephone to those who had been to the gulags. 1069 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1070

I was refused a visa to Soviet Russia, but we smuggled the courts. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, out a volume of the Jewish scriptures for a young boy’s has just pointed out, there is a legal issue here that bar mitzvah gift. His father had been in the gulag. needs to be determined. There are complicated issues About 25 years after that, as chairman of the All-Party of fact as well that need to be carefully assessed, so Group for Bosnia, I saw what happened in Srebrenica, any idea that this is not a matter for the courts really is which was almost the same time as those ghastly misplaced. We need to consider this alternative. massacres in Rwanda. As I said when noble Lords considered this amendment Those who have brought this amendment before in Committee, the campaign to root out genocide and your Lordships’ House tonight have done us all a great bring its perpetrators to justice is a hard struggle. The service. The precision of the amendment is its most problem is that the weakness of the enforcement commending feature, because it concentrates on what mechanisms in the UN Convention on the Prevention the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, rightly referred to and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide means that as the ultimate and most heinous of crimes: genocide. the convention is simply not up to the job. Of course, A week ago, we debated that peculiarly named we must be grateful for the declaration in Article 1 that Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) genocide is a crime under international law and for the Bill. We had an amendment, on which a number of us width of the definition of this crime in Article 2. We spoke, which would forbid the authorising of young can also be sure that the United Kingdom, as one of people under the age of 18 from committing crimes. I the contracting parties, will play its full part in bringing will certainly continue to support my amendment or to justice any individual who can be brought within others on that subject. the jurisdiction of our courts so that they can be Why, my Lords? Because it is wrong. If anything is punished for their part in this crime. But there are gaps wrong on a gargantuan scale, it is of course genocide. which the UN convention leaves open. Its object remains We cannot and must not be fobbed off with an answer largely unfulfilled and we have to face the fact that the from the Front Bench that says that it is too difficult, international institutions are falling short too. that the wording of the amendment is wrong or that it Of course, the vast majority of countries around does not fit in. Some of those excuses have already the world do not practise genocide. They needed no been rehearsed by those such as the noble Lord, Lord persuasion when the convention was open for signature Alton, who has been pressing for the amendment, that they must refrain from it. The problem is with the which I am also doing. minority, those states which have no conscience in this The Prime Minister talks very proudly of “global matter and which still engage in this horrific crime Britain”. Global Britain must have a moral compass. with impunity. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is Global Britain must not sacrifice its national integrity. such a steadfast advocate in this field, has reminded us The country that was responsible for the abolition of once again that the struggle to fill those gaps cannot the slave trade and the abolition of slavery throughout be allowed to fail. the British dominions, in 1807 and 1833 respectively, The procedure that the noble Lord has chosen had must draw upon that proud heritage. What is happening my full support in Committee and it has my full in China to the Uighurs, as we have just been reminded support here, too. I remind your Lordships that it in a very moving speech, is despicable and appalling. I seems to have two very important advantages, which believe that we should ensure that those who can deserve to be emphasised once again. The first is that pronounce on these things are able to pronounce on it meets the requirement that there must be a person, this. Is it genocide? I do not believe that there is any or a group of persons, with a relevant interest to bring doubt that it is right that it should be a legal judgment the matter before the court. The persons described in and pronouncement; if such a pronouncement is made, the amendment will almost certainly satisfy that it is absolutely right that we should not seek to trade requirement. The second is that the procedure it seeks on preferential terms with the People’s Republic of to introduce must allow for due process, with a hearing China—a great country with a great and civilised in open court, in full accordance with the rule of law. people who are having things perpetrated in their name that are the very negation of civilisation. I believe that this object will be achieved. It means that notice of the proceedings will be served on the I say to my noble friend Lady Noakes and others Secretary of State and on a representative of the other that business does matter, but lives matter more: black signatory of the bilateral agreement, both of whom lives, white lives, Chinese lives, Muslim lives and Christian must have the right of reply. That will ensure that they lives—all lives matter. We should not in any way be can present their cases to the court, thus enabling the complicit, even tangentially, in turning a blind eye to court to scrutinise and test all the competing arguments. some of the most evil deeds that have been perpetrated If the argument of the interested persons is upheld, in the past 50 years. I support this amendment. the “preliminary determination” that the amendment refers to will amount to a direction to the Secretary of Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]: My Lords, it is a State that the United Kingdom must withdraw from pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the agreement; in the case of a bilateral agreement that and his very moving speech. I wish to support this will mean, in effect, that the agreement will be revoked. amendment. It presents your Lordships with an alternative Withdrawing from an international agreement in way of dealing with the international crime of genocide circumstances which the agreement itself does not from that which was considered under Amendment 8. provide for is a sensitive and difficult matter. That is I have noted the concerns expressed by the noble especially so where it is not being suggested that any Lord, Lord Lansley, about handing the matter over to provisions of the agreement itself have been breached, 1071 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1072

[LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD] is an opportunity to reset the dial and have the courage but I believe that the noble Lord and his cosignatories of our convictions by taking the global lead. We are right not to have been deflected by these and other absolutely cannot condone genocide and must, through similar problems from persevering with this amendment. the channels available to us, uncover and condemn it. The strength of their position lies in the—if your To condemn genocide on one hand as a nation state, Lordships will forgive me for using Latin—jus cogens then be willing to negotiate trade deals and perpetuate erga omnes nature of the obligation under international trading arrangements is inconsistent in the extreme. It law to prevent and punish acts of genocide. would be hypocritical, and the Government would be That expression was used by Lord Bingham of guilty of turning a blind eye to atrocities that have Cornhill in the Appellate Committee of this House in been proven to be taking place. Walking past on the A v Secretary of State (No 2) in 2005, when he was other side, to use a biblical phrase, is not a stance that examining the obligation relating to torture under a responsible global state should adopt, and it would international law. What this means in our context is undermine our moral influence. that the obligation to prevent and punish genocide is a I quote Robbie Burns, the famous Scottish poet, peremptory obligation under international law. Not and complete the phrase “Man’s inhumanity to man”: only that—as Lord Bingham said, it requires us to do “Man’s inhumanity to man more. It requires states to do all they can within lawful Makes countless thousands mourn!” means to bring genocide to an end. As it binds all I hope that the Minister takes the matter very seriously states, it is an obligation which lies at the heart of the and accepts the amendment. relationships that states undertake with each other. It is the kind of obligation that goes without saying. The fact that an agreement does not refer to it does not Baroness Deech (CB) [V]: My Lords, I am sorry mean that it does not exist or that it can be forgotten that I was not able to vote for the previous amendment, about. although I am very much in support of this one, The conclusion that has been drawn from the because I felt that there were ambiguities—not least propositions that I have just summarised involves because there are offenders against human rights very difficult and overlapping areas of law. The question of close to us, such as in Poland, Hungary and Greece. whether they provide an answer to an objection that This amendment is quite different. It is one of the the course which the amendment seeks to follow has mostprofoundandimportantamendmentstobediscussed no place in a trade agreement is an open question and in your Lordships’ House for a long time. We have an it needs to be addressed. I believe that it is not capable obligation under the genocide convention to prevent of sound resolution simply by a debate in this House. and punish genocide and its perpetrators, but if we It is best resolved by a court after hearing full and rely on the Security Council or the International Criminal carefully reasoned argument from all sides. If that Court, we are dodging our obligations. We know full happens, the judgment—the determination—that is well that China’s seat on the Security Council means issued will carry with it great authority which will that it would veto any such move against itself. What a resonate throughout the world in a way that we need terrible indictment of the international order today, to be sure is done in order to further the cause of especially the UN and its constituent bodies. Instead eliminating genocide. That is what this amendment of living up to their original ideals of maintaining provides for and it is why it has my full support. international peace and security, better living standards, friendly relations and social progress, action—or, more likely, inaction—by the UN has come to represent The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) quite often the very opposite of those ideals: self-seeking (LD): The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble and looking for a scapegoat, a cover for some of the Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have both withdrawn from most reprehensible Governments in the world. speaking to this amendment, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. This amendment possesses the advantage of bringing the UK into compliance with its obligations under the genocide convention. Several states have argued, like 10 pm the UK, that it is for the international and judicial Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]: My Lords, I am systems to make the determination of genocide. This very pleased to endorse this amendment in the name argument is profoundly flawed, as it neglects the basic of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I congratulate fact that it is the state that is the duty bearer under the him on his impassioned and persuasive introduction, genocide convention—hence the states that are parties as has been mentioned by other noble Lords. I fully to the genocide convention must act to ensure that the support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, determination is made by a competent body and that in his recognition of the determination of the noble decisive steps follow to fulfil the states’ obligations Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, under the convention to prevent and punish. Moreover, to uncover atrocities around the world and be fearless to have the issue of genocide, or not, examined in our in their attempts to unravel them and draw them to courts would be a good thing. our attention. It will likely be argued that the amendment may The number of Members of your Lordships’ House jeopardise relationships with states accused of genocide who are listed to speak on this amendment is an in the UK. It should be emphasised that positive indication of the seriousness of the issue that it seeks genocide judgments are exceptionally rare, owing to to address. I shall be brief, but I emphasise that I fully the extremely high evidentiary standard. A formal support the view that in this new era of our history it legal examination and determination of genocide in 1073 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1074 court, to which the trade signatories might make enable social control. Trade with any part of China representations, should not be any more diplomatically should be under the microscope, and let us not forget upsetting than, for example, the UK making complaints Tibet and the danger that now faces Hong Kong. at the United Nations against nations such as China Governments have the power to influence this. If China’s for their alleged human rights abuses.The amendment—if trade and investment are cut down, it may not be able passed, as I hope it will be—will in time become a matter to finance its barbaric projects. Not only should this of diplomatic pride, sending a strong signal about the amendmentbepassedwithacclaim,butotherGovernments values of the UK as a leader in global human rights. should follow suit. Owing to the rarity of genocide judgments, very We must remember the genocide against the Tutsis few countries would fall within the purview of these in Rwanda. The world failed to react to the events provisions. It is difficult to envisage, therefore, that the while they were unfolding. What did the Security Government’s ability to trade will be significantly Council do? It removed its peacekeeping mission and affected. Generally speaking, Governments tend to allowed bureaucratic foot-dragging to obfuscate the seek to strike trade deals with nations with which they need for prompt—indeed, advance—action. That has share common values. The UK does not currently weighed heavily on the international community, which have a trade deal with a country credibly accused of now realises that it must do more. Advance action is genocide, I believe, and one is not in prospect. needed to prevent genocide. Once it is happening it is As it happens, we are unlikely to achieve or even too late. That is why this amendment is so well crafted want a trade agreement with China. The experience of and so deserving of support from your Lordships. Canada shows why. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had been expected to come away with an agreement to Baroness O’Loan (CB) [V]: My Lords, I would like formally start trade talks, but he insisted that any talks to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Alton and include gender and labour rights and environmental Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner standards. He also raised human rights and China’s and Lady Kennedy, on this important amendment. I use of the death penalty. Basically, he was shown the would also like to congratulate them and the noble door and was told no—that there would be no negotiation Baroness, Lady Cox, on their work on the issue of of a free trade agreement. genocide more broadly. Likewise Australia, which, along with many other I need to declare an interest: I have been appointed countries, has been a vocal critic of China’s treatment as a member of the panel for the independent review of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, its suppression of democracy of the Human Rights Act, which was announced in Hong Kong, and its military activities in the South today.The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment China Sea. The anti-climax came in April when the of the Crime of Genocide was unanimously adopted Australian Prime Minister took the lead in calling for by the UN in 1948. It is important, perhaps, to remind a thorough investigation into the source of the coronavirus. ourselves of the definition of genocide, because it is That incensed China. Since then, the deterioration of not just killing or causing serious bodily harm or mental the China/Australia relationship has been swift. China harm to members of a group because of their national, is barring Australian goods and putting punitive tariffs ethnic, racial or religious affiliations. It is also deliberately on them. inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, As for the attempted EU-China comprehensive imposing measures intended to prevent births within agreement on investment, it is only to be expected that the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group the EU will put finance ahead of human rights, and even to another group. These are all things we are currently the mildest rebuke from the EU about human rights in seeing in Xinjiang. China elicits a response from China that it should not be meddling in China’s internal affairs—that the Chinese Amendment 9 provides a mechanism for limited people will not accept an instructor on human rights and prevention and sanction of genocide, and it hence oppose double standards. It will all likely end in tears. recognises the ongoing obligation of all states with which we trade not to engage in genocide. This amendment embodies the only thing that we can do. International courts are ineffective; international There has been reference already to Xinjiang, and arrest depends on the perpetrator coming here. It is the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke eloquently of the insulting to the victims of genocide to imagine that extent of trading contracts in China which involve putting up monuments, especially after the catastrophe, operations in Xinjiang. Your Lordships will recall that will make any difference. Nor will lighting candles or the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial pulling down statues—all empty gestures. Discrimination described the region as “a massive internment camp shrouded in secrecy, a … no-rights If captains of industry and politicians had adopted zone.” the practice outlined in this amendment in the 1930s, The China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, history might have been very different. For example, says that the “organised butchery” of living people to IBM had immoral commerce with the Third Reich, sell body parts of those from religious minorities and supplying it with tabulating machines and punch cards, ethnic groups could be compared so useful in rounding up victims. “to the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th Century”, Can there be any doubt now about the genocidal such as the Nazi gassing of Jews and the Khmer Rouge moves of China? Modern communications ensure that massacres in Cambodia. The tribunal went on to say, no one can hide from their senses the genocidal policies “But nothing, or nothing much, will be done by the Government that it is pursuing against the Uighurs.Foreign companies because the damage caused by even trying to extinguish such have wittingly or unwittingly helped China with facial abuses comes at what seems to be perceived as an unacceptable recognition technology and artificial intelligence to cost to trade, and ultimately to our other legitimate interests.” 1075 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1076

[BARONESS O’LOAN] we are not forced to continue trading unethically with Through Amendment 9 we can show that something those involved in genocide, and so to be complicit in will be done, that genocide is unacceptable, that we their genocide. will not engage with trade deals where genocide occurs, Amendment 9 also adds content to our commitment and that such deals will be revoked where the High under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Court makes a preliminary determination that they Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is a small should be revoked on the grounds of genocide, should but significant step in the right direction. As my noble that be the final decision. friend Lord Alton often says, genocide response and Genocide may not be a popular topic, and it happens genocide prevention are not matters of chance. They far from home, but genocide affects us all in various require a judicial mechanism that works to put structure ways and to a varying extent. One of the most direct into the way we deal with this crime. The noble and ways in which genocide affects us is that by trading learned Lord, Lord Hope, has told us that this mechanism with genocidaires we become complicit in the genocide will do just that. I hope noble Lords will support itself because we are not taking action to sanction or Amendment 9, as I shall. prevent it. It is not enough to respond by saying that if we do not enter into such a trade agreement, others Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]: My Lords, in this long will. We have moral and legal obligations on the dialogue with the Government, notably led in this international stage, and our standing will be diminished House by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the facts have if we do not recognise the need to protect the peoples been reiterated time and again. There is an international of the world against genocide by refusing to contract agreement on the definition as set out in the UN with those who use people in their jurisdiction as slave Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the labourers, or so regulate their lives that they can be Crime of Genocide, and this carries in bold the duty forced to act as slave labourers. to prevent such genocide During the struggle against the slave trade, which “at the instant the State learns of, or should normally have engaged Parliament for 40 years, ordinary people in their learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be millions boycotted sugar from slave-owning plantations committed.” and refused to add to the bottom-line profits of that We need only need look at the clear early warning sordid trade. Recent activity on the public stage tells signs of impending murderous attacks on the Rohingya us that the British people today would not wish to be Muslims—which await final legal determination of complicit in slave labour and genocide, even if there is genocide by an independent tribunal—to acknowledge a price to pay. that prevention of genocide is still a distant goal, Amendment 9 is tightly drawn; it will not prevent fraught as it is with legal and political obstacles. trade, except in these very exceptional circumstances. Meanwhile, whole ethnic groups are being slaughtered, It puts down a marker that UK trade is based on an and we turn away for want of a mechanism that would adherence to our obligations in international law to go some way to both recognise the crime of genocide prevent the crime of genocide. and demonstrate with actions our duty to prevent and One Minister recently suggested that possible trading punish such crimes. partners might be put off by the possibility that the As we have heard time and again, this amendment trade arrangements would be ended if they were found provides a mechanism, namely to acknowledge the to be in breach of this amendment. We should not be genocidal intent of a state together with a prevention entering into trading agreements with any country measure, by limiting trade with that state. This is a big that is engaged in or planning genocide in its various ask. After all, trade is also a lifesaver for nations and forms. If countries subsequently move towards genocidal for millions of people. However, in the absence of a actions we should provide this remedy through our mechanism, it is difficult to see how a state signatory courts, for we are committed to our obligations under to the Geneva conventions can fulfil its obligations. the convention against genocide. The Minister said The record of UK action in fulfilling this obligation is that to withdraw from a trade agreement because of by no means exemplary. The early warning signs in the human rights abuses would be extraordinary. Genocide case of the Rohingyas—which were pretty unmistakeable is extraordinary and the measures required to combat in that they included mass murder, torture, abuse, it may well be extraordinary, but we need to do this. rape, violence, sexual violence and more, perpetrated by the military against a defined ethnic group—were 10.15 pm first brought to the International Court of Justice not This provision would also complement the powerful by the UK but by the Gambia. new Magnitsky-style sanctions regime established by Her Majesty’sGovernment place immense confidence the Government in July this year,which targets individuals in the international judicial bodies to respond to genocide, and organisations that have been involved in some of despite being given all the reasons not to. We would all the gravest human rights violations and abuses around like these bodies to pass muster, and one day, perhaps, the world. Currently, individuals and organisations in they will. However, hope should not blind us to reality. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and North Korea are Totalitarian states that hold the keys to the gates of subject to sanctions. the international judicial system will not deliver justice— Amendment 9 simply provides a mechanism for certainly not when they themselves are the offenders. judicial determination, which would enable the UK to That is why this amendment is so important. It enables decide whether such a revocation clause in a trade actions to be taken immediately to establish whether agreement should be triggered. Amendment 9 would there is a case to answer, while the Government wait enable us to be in a stronger trading position, so that for the international bodies to make the determination. 1077 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1078

Understandably, Amendment 9 cannot resolve all to be a way to deal with something that is called these issues, but it can address one. It can ensure that genocide without waiting for the UN Security Council Her Majesty’s Government do not trade with states to come to a decision, where it is always possible for judged by our own High Court to be probable perpetrators one state alone to veto the idea of genocide. of genocide and do not, therefore, become complicit Since arriving in your Lordships’ House, I, like other in these acts. The amendment introduces a domestic noble Lords, have heard the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mechanism for genocide determination in a very limited and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, again and again number of cases. The UK at least will be able to say raise the issue of genocide. From the Government that it did not wait to see any unspeakable horrors Front Bench we always hear the same refrain: “We occur while doing nothing: it saw, and it acted. cannot do anything unless there is a legal ruling. There needs to be a judgment. Unless something is called Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]: My Lords, at this genocide by a court, we cannot act.” As the noble very late hour I will be as brief as I can, so that other Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out, this amendment will Members waiting to speak can contribute as well and begin to effect that change. It is not court interference the House can perhaps get to vote on this crucial or damaging the separation of powers; it is enabling amendment at not too unreasonable an hour. I this House and the other place to remind the Government congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my that there are times when it is vital to act. noble friend Lady Kennedy on their excellent introductions Her Majesty’s Government, particularly the noble to Amendment 9. Much has already been said on this Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, repeatedly tell us vital amendment. I will, therefore, make just a couple that there needs to be a legal case for us to talk about of very brief points. genocide. This amendment would allow that to happen. First, as has been said, the amendment provides a Surely it is time for the amendment to be passed, for means for the UK to live up to its commitments to the other place to be able to think about this and to protect against, prevent and punish the crime of genocide, take a lead. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of as declared in our signing of the genocide convention. The Shaws, pointed out, this might be a novel act, but Unless this mechanism is established, we are in real that is no reason not to make that act. Surely, if danger of defaulting on these commitments by relying we want to play a role in the world, sometimes it is on means which, as noble Lords have eloquently illustrated necessary to act first. this evening, can be unreliable in holding alleged perpetrators of genocide to account. Moreover, the It is not about virtue signalling; as the noble Lord, amendment has the potential to have wide impact. It Lord Alton, pointed out, it is about virtuous behaviour. will ensure that victims of suspected genocide globally Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I think there have a viable means to pursue a legal judgment on are times when one has to say that, however important their case when all other avenues are blocked. As the trade is, some issues are more important. You cannot noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, if we are to be—in simply equate trade and the value of human life. This the words of the Prime Minister—global Britain, we is about human life, and we must stand to be counted. need a moral compass that guides us. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment. By passing this amendment, the UK would send a Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My clear signal to other states that it places its values at Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the centre of any trade deals, and that the international the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. I join community must stand by its commitments to do all many other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lords within its power to ensure that the evils of genocide who tabled this amendment. I will be brief, because I are consigned to the history books. This amendment want to ensure that as many Members of your Lordships’ offers a route to achieving that. Today, we have a very House as possible have the chance to vote tonight. I rare opportunity to act on a matter of global and must humbly associate myself with the highly powerful historic significance. I sincerely hope that noble Lords speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The will support this amendment and start us on the long Shaws, who made the crucial point about the international and difficult journey, identified by the noble and learned importance of our deliberations here tonight on this Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, of putting meaning novel and innovative legal move. into its intentions. I will certainly be supporting it. This brings me to the first of the three points The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) I would like to make. In discussing a previous group of (LD): The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has withdrawn, amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. of Craighead, said that the UK has been a leader for many decades in human rights developments. UK civil Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD): My Lords, the society, lawyers and campaign groups certainly have noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to the genocide been, and Governments of various stripes have often in Rwanda. When that happened, I was a graduate been dragged along by those campaigners. That is what student writing on the European Parliament. I happened we are seeing here tonight: individuals in your Lordships’ to be visiting a friend in Italy, and she had a visiting House and campaign groups saying that we cannot Catholic priest from Rwanda who said to me, “Please tolerate the current situation and we have to act. help”. I was in my 20s and I was involved in a political The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred to the party, but I was not able to speak in a Parliament. I Magnitsky sanctions—another new and powerful weapon certainly could not go and stand in the European in the human rights armoury, which has developed Parliament and try to effect change. But I always felt from the actions of US civil society and campaigners. that there was something wrong and that there ought I always like to highlight good news, and I think 1079 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1080

[BARONESS BENNETT OF MANOR CASTLE] Baroness Meacher (CB): My Lords, I applaud my we can see in that pairing a real sign of good news. noble friend Lord Alton for tabling Amendment 9 and Although, as many noble Lords have commented, the for all the work he does to promote justice on this international community and the United Nations have most important of issues. I believe that everything that been inactive or unable to act in hideous case after needs to be said has already been said very powerfully; hideous case of genocide, we are seeing new attempts, the case is overwhelming. Personally, I hope that we new approaches and new ways of ensuring action. can get on with the vote as soon as possible, and, That is why this is so important. therefore, I am abandoning my speech.

10.30 pm Baroness Cox (CB) [V]: My Lords, I rise to speak in Secondly, I would like to respond to something that favour of Amendment 9. In doing so, I return to an the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said when discussing an issue that I have raised in your Lordships’ House on earlier group of amendments. He questioned the role numerous occasions. Recently, in the context of the of the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) has already delivered an effective rebuttal to that, but I Bill, I spoke about the use of Uighur slave labour and want to make a further point. Human rights, as most the dangers of working with companies like Huawei, people would probably agree, are universal, but that is which are complicit in using slave labour and producing often not the way that Governments, or even Parliaments, the Orwellian surveillance technology that locks up have acted. We have tended to use human rights as a 1 million people, attempting to destroy their religious stick to beat the people with whom we have other disputes beliefs and culture. This point has been highlighted and conflicts. For various reasons, we have quietly turned powerfully by many noble Lords. the other way when it is people who are our friends, or perhaps even people whom we saw as the enemy of In their policies, we can see many of the indicators our enemies and, therefore, as our friends. The nature that constitute genocide in the strict legal definition of of the courts is that they do not have that kind of bias; that word. We can also see it in the treatment of they have a universalist approach to judgment, which Rohingya, Shan and Kachin people in Burma and the is exactly what we need with human rights. murder of thousands of Christians and many Muslims Thirdly, we have heard many very strong arguments in Nigeria by Islamist militants. Last year, Her Majesty’s tonight about the moral case for this amendment and Government accepted recommendation 7 of the Bishop the previous group of amendments. That is enough on of Truro’sreport, confirming that genocide determination its own; it really should not need any more. However, is a matter for courts. Over the last year, Her Majesty’s there is a crucial point to be made: defending, speaking Government have had opportunities to put this into up for and creating a world in which there is more practice and support the Gambia proceedings against respect for human rights—as this amendment, which Myanmar before the ICJ, but they chose to remain simply attempts to stop genocide, would do—makes silent, monitoring. They cannot have it both ways, the world safer and more stable and secure for everybody. saying they are for courts but not doing anything to Making this amendment is not just morally the right ensure that they are considering such issues. thing to do; it is also in our self-interest. My noble friend Lord Alton and I recently had a meeting with the International Criminal Court, trying Lord Lansley (Con): Contrary to my intention, I must to get international judicial action against those responsible intervene to correct what I regard as a mischaracterisation for or complicit in the massacres in Nigeria. However, of my views. It was not my view, and not the view I sadly, that system now lacks effectiveness, which is expressed, that courts have no role: I entirely accept why we need a judicial route that can examine evidence the proposition at the heart of this that courts will and, if the evidence substantiates it, make a make a determination relating to whether a state has predetermination of genocide, which is precisely what committed genocide. My point was that that being the Amendment 9 will enable us to do. case does not lead to the executive action that follows Just three weeks ago, I went on a harrowing visit to from it. Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh with HART, my The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, small humanitarian charity.I saw videos of the beheading and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and torture of Armenians captured by Azerbaijan; said that the authority of the court would lead to the some were filmed by the perpetrators on the Armenians’ revocation of an international trade agreement. That own phones and sent back to their families to see the is not what the amendment says. I am constantly being horrible things that had been perpetrated towards told in this debate that the amendment is precise—it is their loved ones. I also recorded many anguished not precise. It does not say that; it says: eye-witness statements. I sent our report to the Foreign “International bilateral trade agreements are revoked” Secretary and will make a copy available in the Library by the action of the High Court. I object to the fact that of your Lordships’ House. a High Court determination leads directly to the revocation Last week, Human Rights Watch published a report of the agreement entered into by the Government and that provided evidence of the torture and humiliation endorsed by Parliament. If that determination takes inflicted by Azerbaijan on Armenian prisoners of war. place and we want to pass legislation, it should say Genocide Watch has designated Azerbaijan as fulfilling that Ministers should act to revoke that international all 10 criteria of genocide. In the genocide unleased trade agreement in these circumstances, not that it is against the Armenians more than a 100 years ago by revoked automatically by the determination of the the Ottoman Empire, an estimated 1.5 million Middle High Court itself. Eastern Christians—including Armenians, Greeks, 1081 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1082

Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syriacs, Arameans and Maronites global movement towards zero tolerance of these —perished between 1915 and 1923. This genocide has depravities. It is the time for action. This amendment received recognition by many countries,including Wales— must be supported. all credit to Wales—but not the United Kingdom. At the time, the world was indifferent, which led Hitler, on 22 August 1939, infamously to say, Lord Polak (Con): I pay tribute to the movers of “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the this amendment, in particular my noble friend Lord Armenians?” Alton—for he is my friend—for his tenacity and passion. Hitler considered the Armenian “solution” a precedent On 29 October 2018, following the horrific attack at for his atrocities against the Jews. We know all too well the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, when 11 people what that meant. were gunned down, I spoke in this Chamber and The Genocide Convention was the response to the posed the question: horrific atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis against the “Have we learned nothing from history?” Jews and was meant to signify the international I went on to say that commitment to “never again” by introducing duties to “it is nice to stand shoulder to shoulder and offer sympathy, but it prevent, supress and punish the crime of genocide—duties is action that is now required.”—[Official Report, 29/10/18; col. 1122.] that successive Governments have neglected for far Amendment 9 gives us a chance to take action. Wringing too long. It is my passionate hope that the Armenians, our hands and mouthing nice words will deter no one. who are, as we speak, suffering again from a genocide Just three weeks ago, I paid tribute to Lord Sacks in inflicted by Azerbaijan and Turkey, will receive the this Chamber and was struck by how many noble genocide recognition that is due, and that the violations Lords, from all parties and none and from all traditions of international law perpetrated by Azerbaijan and and none, spoke of him with such affection and Turkey will not be allowed to pass with impunity. admiration. In rereading some of his writings, I came In recent months, we have heard a lot about “taking across a lecture from 17 February 2004, entitled back control”. As we already have control of our own “Never Again”—But Will We Ever Learn the Lessons courts, we should give them the first say in recognising of History? The lecture by Rabbi Sacks was at a this most serious of all crimes: genocide. Amendment national service taking place to mark the 10th anniversary 9 would provide such a mechanism to deal with the of the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda, which question of genocide determination. Having just returned he described as from the harrowing experience of witnessing people “an almost unimaginable orgy of violence” suffer a genocide while we talk here this evening, I feel with people passionately that it is high time that we broke the “hacked to death by machetes … in a country where perpetrators gridlock of genocide determination. Amendment 9 and victims had previously lived together as neighbours”. would enable us to do that and I wholeheartedly Rabbi Sacks continued by explaining that, the next support it. day,18 February 2004, was Yom HaShoah, the Holocaust memorial day in the Jewish calendar. He explained: Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]: My Lords, it “Apart from attempted genocide, the Holocaust and Rwanda is an honour to follow so many powerful speeches had two things in common. First, they were preceded by deliberate dehumanisation: the Jews were deemed ‘vermin’ or ‘lice’; the supporting this ground-breaking amendment, particularly Tutsis were Inyenzi, ‘cockroaches’.” that of my noble friend Lady Cox just now. We are As he put it: 72 years on from the UN Convention on the Prevention “In this way mass murder could be justified as a kind of and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, yet we still sterilisation, a necessary, if painful, operation to restore a nation fail to prevent, suppress and punish this horrific crime. to its health.” By ignoring it, we are complicit. Of the 17 genocide The second similarity, he argued, was that alerts around the globe, 14 have reached mass “both tragedies were known in advance. The international extermination. I want briefly to focus chillingly on an representatives who gathered at Evian … in 1938 knew that a area that affects my own profession, with some forced terrible fate was about to overtake the Jews of Europe.” to participate under extreme threats. Yet they each In China, surgeons are accused of forced sterilisations “declared that they had no room for refugees… in Rwanda, in and, most horrifically,forced organ-harvesting on a mass 1990 the main Hutu newspaper had issued its own equivalent” scale. It was Nazi doctors like Mengele who perpetrated of what he described as “the Nuremberg laws”. By atrocities, experimenting on innocent people; the list 1992, over half a million machetes had been distributed. of their actions is sickening. They hid their horrors He went on: behind the excuse of medical and scientific advancement. “In 1993, an international commission gave warning” Now, we see the same things happening. that a potential genocide was imminent and the head What can be done? Considering China and many of the UN peacekeeping force, in 1994, other countries’ powerful positions, as has been said in “passed on a warning … that a mass extermination was being this debate, engaging the UN will fail. We therefore planned.” must strengthen our domestic mechanisms to fill the As Rabbi Sacks sombrely acknowledged: void left by international bodies. We cannot say that “Both times humanity hid its face.” now is not the time: now is never a comfortable time Amendment 9 is a straightforward, proportionate call and we must have the courage to do what is right. to action. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said in Amendment 9 is a step toward strengthening our his moving speech, it says that we simply cannot turn a domestic response to genocide. As the noble Baroness, blind eye, even in the interest of trade deals, when a Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, hopes, it could start a state is guilty of genocide. 1083 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1084

[LORD POLAK] on many occasions. I have met the victims of the I know that it is late, but permit me to state very egregious crimes that have taken place in those two clearly my support for the campaign led by Andrew countries. Just last night, I was on an online video call Mitchell MP. On 21 May 2020, he wrote an article, with people in Baghdad who are still living with the published in the Times, under the headline “Britain situation from the north of Iraq which the noble Lord, has a duty to bring genocide accused to justice”. He Lord Alton, introduced. I commend his work in this said: House and the way that he introduced this group of “No fewer than five alleged Rwandan genocide perpetrators amendments. live in the UK”, My noble friends Lady Northover and Lady Smith four of whom receive benefits. While the US, Canada, have indicated our support from these Benches and I France, Belgium and Sweden, among others, have need not repeat any of their arguments. We will work extradited those accused to face the Rwandan justice with the noble Lord and others, as indicated by the system, which abolished the death penalty more than noble Lord, Lord Collins, in the previous group, to 10 years ago, shockingly, we have not. Andrew Mitchell address some of the areas that have been referred to in ended his words with the following: the debate. For example, if it is a matter of the courts, “The souls of the slaughtered Tutsis cry out for justice but which courts, and how do they interact with our Britain has turned a deaf ear. We should all be ashamed.” treaties and agreements, both domestic and international? I call on the Government to deal swiftly with this Would there have to be clauses and agreements, as the matter, certainly before the next CHOGM, to be held noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, or is the noble in Kigali—the Rwandan capital—next summer. and learned Lord, Lord Hope, correct in saying that Finally, on 23 September 2020, I said in this House mechanisms are already in place? This can be discussed that the treatment by the Chinese of Uighur Muslims and identified. was horrific, yet within days, as the noble Baroness, Also, is this to be linked purely with preferential Lady Falkner, said, China was elected to sit on the terms, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, indicated, United Nations Human Rights Council. Weall witnessed or is it for all trade, as has also been indicated? There the footage of Uighur people being herded on to are consequences for both of those issues, and yes, trains and transported to camps. It is footage that is all they have to be agreed—as well as the interaction too familiar. Many of us who have heard first-hand between our domestic courts and the mechanisms, accounts of the depredations of the Nazi camps know which has not been raised so much. Genocide is of how major industrial companies ruthlessly used the course one of the crimes under the International Criminal slave labour in those camps to produce their goods Court, which is different from those which can be and to make their fortunes. Will it be a case of business triggered by the genocide convention. How do they as usual as companies profit from the blood, sweat interact with each other? These are all issues that I and tears of today’s slave labour or are we prepared to agree can and should be resolved through discussions. do something about it? Finally, I want to repeat to the Government from Towards the end of his presentation, Rabbi Sacks these Benches a clear call for a trade and human rights said that people often asked: where was God in the policy statement where a UK framework of atrocity Holocaust? He maintained that that was the wrong analysis which can be integrated into our trade policy question; the real question was: where was man? He is agreed. It should be something where officials in the suggested that it sometimes appears that we have DIT,the Foreign and Commonwealth and Development learned nothing, which is why memorials are necessary. Office and BEIS should be able to see proper links Tonight, in this House we are confronted once again between judicial measures, human rights measures, with the same question: where were we when we had trade agreements and our trading relationships. In the the chance to act against those who are responsible for absence of a proper framework with atrocity analysis, today’s most grievous crimes against humanity? For we will not be doing what I believe that all in this those who have said and will say that the Trade Bill is House want the UK to be, which is a leader in the not the place for such an amendment, I say that I will world, not for deciding on the hierarchy of suffering not join with the hand-wringing and the mouthing of but on preventing the worst excesses of human rights nice words brigade. I will join with those who vote for abuses. We need the structures and the frameworks in action by supporting this amendment and I urge all our legal and trading methods to allow us to do that noble Lords to do likewise. and I hope that the Government will finally respond positively to this debate. 10.45 pm Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD): My Lords, this has Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, I will been a powerful debate and rightly so, given the seriousness not detain the House for too long because I made my of the issue. This Wednesday, 9 December, is the day comments in the previous debate about my support that the United Nations will mark the adoption of the and that of the Opposition for this amendment. I genocide convention. It is also the International Day thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and particularly of Commemoration and Dignity of the Victims of the my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for their Crime of Genocide and of the Prevention of this interventions. Crime. I wish to declare an interest in that I chair the I will single out two contributions. One is that of UK board of Search for Common Ground, an the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has international peacebuilding charity. Just before the presented us with very clear arguments about why this lockdown I was in northern Iraq, where I have been argument should go to the Commons and why the more than 20 times, and Sudan, to which I have gone Commons should consider it. The other is that of the 1085 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1086 noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because he is right: we have carefully to all the speeches but, despite the very to respond to the government mantra that we have strong arguments that were presented by the noble heard so many times: “It has to go to a competent Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Smith, and a few court”. If that is the response, then, as the noble Lord, other noble Lords, the Government have serious concerns Lord Forsyth, said, let the Commons decide. That is about this approach, some of which were touched on what this House can do tonight. in the previous groups,as my noble friend Lord Grimstone iterated most strongly in his remarks. Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, we The key point is that this would strike at the heart have had a very long debate, and it is now my job to of the separation of powers in Britain’s constitutional address the amendment in the name of the noble system, allowing the High Court to frustrate trade Lord, Lord Alton. agreements entered into by the Government and ratified I have listened very carefully to the speech of the after parliamentary scrutiny. The noble and learned noble Lord, and noted that he has raised the subject of Lord, Lord Hope, raised a point about the separation genocide—a heinous crime—more than 300 times, of powers and the role of the courts. The Government’s which is remarkable. I applaud his persistence and I position has consistently been that only a competent wish that I could be the Minister to provide an answer— court should make determinations of genocide, and perhaps the 301st—that gives the necessary satisfaction this does not entail the courts having the power to to him, and to other distinguished noble Lords who revoke trade agreements. State genocide is very difficult have taken part in this very interesting debate. There to prove in the judicial context—the evidential threshold have been some very moving and passionate speeches is very high, and proceedings tend to be long and and we have had quotes from around the houses, costly but the amendment would make it simple to ranging from Robbie Burns to—I should mention bring vexatious allegations of genocide to the court as this—the very great, late Lord Sacks. a means of putting political and international pressure I do not advocate repeating the points made so on the Government. eloquently by my noble friend Lord Grimstone in a Perhaps I may take up a point raised, in part, by my previous group, so my remarks—I hope that the noble friend Lord Cormack. I remind the House, a bit House will forgive me—are necessarily short. I will, like a long-playing record, that the Bill focuses on however, quickly re-emphasise that the Government continuity agreements, but I would like to say a word share wholeheartedly the concerns underpinning this about our approach to free trade agreements. We do amendment. My noble friend Lord Cormack referred not see a choice between securing growth and investment to global Britain, as did a number of other Peers. The for the UK and supporting human rights. Our experience UK has also long supported the promotion of our is that political freedom and the rule of law are vital values globally,and remains committed to its international underpinnings for both prosperity and stability, and obligations. We are clear that more trade does not that by having a strong economic relationship with have to come at the expense of human rights. This partners, we are able to have open discussions on a includes clauses in our trade agreements with many range of very difficult issues, including human rights. developing and emerging markets: suspensive powers Despite our varying approach to agreements with in our trade preferences regime and recourse to trade partners, we will always have open discussions on a levers through our sanctions policy. range of issues, including human rights. The UK has played a leading international role in holding China to account for abuses, in particular As my noble friend Lord Grimstone said earlier, we those reported as taking place against the Uighur have provided extensive information to Parliament on Muslims—which, again, was a theme during the debate our negotiations, including publishing our objectives this evening. We have led joint statements at the UN’s and economic scoping assessments prior to negotiations human rights bodies and underlined our concern directly beginning. We continue to engage closely with the to the Chinese authorities at senior levels. We have relevant scrutiny committees—namely, the International also repeatedly urged businesses that are involved in Trade Committee in the House of Commons and the investing in Xinjiang or which have parts of their International Agreements Sub-Committee in the House supply chain in the region, to conduct appropriate due of Lords. diligence to satisfy themselves that their activities do Just before I conclude, I want to say something not support any human rights violations or abuses. We about China, because many references were made to have reinforced this message through engagement with that country. I say at the outset—as noble Lords businesses, industry groups and other stakeholders. would expect me to say—that China is an important Under the Modern Slavery Act the UK became the economic partner for the UK. UK/China trade is first country in the world to require businesses to currently worth approximately £76 billion. China is report on how they are tackling modern slavery in our fourth-largest trading partner, the sixth-largest their operations and supply chains. export market and the third-largest import market. This amendment seeks to give the High Court of Currently, we have no plans to commence free trade England and Wales powers to revoke trade agreements agreement negotiations with China. Having recently where the court holds that another signatory to the concluded an agreement with Japan, our current priorities, relevant agreement has committed genocide. I was as my noble friend Lord Grimstone has said on many grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley, who not occasions, are the US, Australia and New Zealand, as only alluded to this in the last group but—as I know, economies more similar to our own. Looking ahead— though I came in slightly late—in this group too. He again, as my noble friend has said—we are committed made some very helpful and interesting points. I listened to seeking accession to the CPTPP. 1087 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1088

[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE] Anderson of Swansea, L. Foster of Bath, L. I do not want to delay the House any longer and the Andrews, B. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. hour is late. In the light of the legal difficulties and Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Fox, L. unintended consequences, I ask the noble Lord to Ashton of Upholland, B. Framlingham, L. Bach, L. Freyberg, L. withdraw his amendment. Bakewell of Hardington Gale, B. Mandeville, B. Garden of Frognal, B. Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, I am Bakewell, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Balfe, L. German, L. grateful to the noble Viscount for his response to the Barker, B. Goddard of Stockport, L. debate. He would not expect me, though, to accept the Bassam of Brighton, L. Golding, B. tenor of his arguments, nor would the House expect me Beith, L. Goldsmith, L. to speak at any length at the conclusion of this debate, Benjamin, B. Goudie, B. because I know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Grantchester, L. Berkeley of Knighton, L. Greaves, L. was right to remind us, that we would like to move to a Berkeley, L. Grender, B. vote. Billingham, B. Grey-Thompson, B. Blackstone, B. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Let me make just two points. Anyone who doubts Blencathra, L. Grocott, L. the point of the House of Lords should read the Boateng, L. Hain, L. speeches tomorrow in Hansard, because it has been a Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Hamwee, B. remarkable debate on all sides. Good, constructive B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. points have been made, and people have quite rightly Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Hanworth, V. Bowness, L. Harries of Pentregarth, L. said no amendment is going to be perfect and any Bradley, L. Harris of Haringey, L. amendment can be refined and improved. That is the Bragg, L. Harris of Richmond, B. purpose of this place—it is the point of our existence. Brinton, B. Haskel, L. If we send this amendment to the House of Commons, Broers, L. Haughey, L. it can continue to be worked on and those issues can Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Haworth, L. easily be addressed. Brookeborough, V. Hayman of Ullock, B. Brown of Eaton-under- Hayman, B. Heywood, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. During the debate, a number of noble Lords, including Bruce of Bennachie, L. Healy of Primrose Hill, B. the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Bryan of Partick, B. Hendy, L. Lord Polak, mentioned Rwanda. I visited the genocide Bull, B. Henig, B. sites in Rwanda; I went to a place called Murambi, Burnett, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. where 56,000 people had been killed. I saw the skeletons Burt of Solihull, B. Hodgson of Abinger, B. of pregnant women with their children in what had Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Hogan-Howe, L. Campbell-Savours, L. Hollick, L. been a college but had been turned into a memorial for Carter of Coles, L. Hollins, B. victims of that violence. The noble Lord, Lord Hague Cashman, L. Hooper, B. of Richmond, as William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, Chakrabarti, B. Hope of Craighead, L. spoke at the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, Chandos, V. Howarth of Newport, L. and he said: Clancarty, E. Hoyle, L. Clark of Calton, B. Hughes of Stretford, B. “It is not enough to remember; we have a responsibility Clark of Kilwinning, B. Humphreys, B. to act.” Clark of Windermere, L. Hussein-Ece, B. It is not enough to remember. We have a responsibility Clement-Jones, L. Hutton of Furness, L. to act. Collins of Highbury, L. Inglewood, L. Colville of Culross, V. Janke, B. During the Second World War, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cormack, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. a renowned theologian, defied Hitler and the Reich. Corston, B. Jones of Whitchurch, B. He was sentenced to death and executed. He famously Cotter, L. Jones, L. said: Coussins, B. Judd, L. Craig of Radley, L. Kakkar, L. “Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” Crisp, L. Kennedy of Cradley, B. Now is the time to act. I would like to test the opinion Cromwell, L. Kennedy of Southwark, L. of the House. Curry of Kirkharle, L. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Davies of Brixton, L. Kerr of Kinlochard, L. Davies of Oldham, L. Kidron, B. Davies of Stamford, L. Kilclooney, L. 11.01 pm Deech, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Desai, L. Kramer, B. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 9 Dholakia, L. Laming, L. Donaghy, B. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. Contents 287; Not-Contents 161. Donoughue, L. Layard, L. Doocey, B. Leeds, Bp. Amendment 9 agreed. Drake, B. Lennie, L. D’Souza, B. Levy, L. Division No. 4 Dubs, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. Eatwell, L. Liddle, L. CONTENTS Elder, L. Liverpool, E. Falkner of Margravine, B. Ludford, B. Aberdare, L. Allen of Kensington, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Macdonald of River Glaven, Addington, L. Alli, L. Featherstone, B. L. Adonis, L. Altmann, B. Field of Birkenhead, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Alderdice, L. Alton of Liverpool, L. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, Allan of Hallam, L. Anderson of Ipswich, L. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. L. 1089 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1090

Mair, L. Shinkwin, L. Buscombe, B. Lucas, L. Mann, L. Shipley, L. Butler of Brockwell, L. Lupton, L. Manningham-Buller, B. Sikka, L. Caine, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Simon, V. Callanan, L. Mancroft, L. Massey of Darwen, B. Smith of Basildon, B. Carrington of Fulham, L. Manzoor, B. McAvoy, L. Smith of Finsbury, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and McConnell of Glenscorrodale, Smith of Gilmorehill, B. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Cookstown, L. L. Smith of Newnham, B. Colgrain, L. McGregor-Smith, B. McDonagh, B. Snape, L. Colwyn, L. McLoughlin, L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Soley, L. Courtown, E. Mendoza, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Somerset, D. Couttie, B. Mobarik, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. St Albans, Bp. Craigavon, V. Morgan of Cotes, B. McNally, L. Stephen, L. Crathorne, L. Morris of Bolton, B. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. Stern, B. Davies of Gower, L. Morrissey, B. Meacher, B. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. De Mauley, L. Morrow, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Stone of Blackheath, L. Deighton, L. Moylan, L. B. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Dobbs, L. Neville-Jones, B. Mitchell, L. Storey, L. Dodds of Duncairn, L. Neville-Rolfe, B. Monks, L. Strasburger, L. Duncan of Springbank, L. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Morgan of Drefelin, B. Stunell, L. Dundee, E. B. Newby, L. Suttie, B. Dunlop, L. Noakes, B. Northover, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Eaton, B. Northbrook, L. Nye, B. Teverson, L. Eccles, V. Norton of Louth, L. Oates, L. Thomas of Gresford, L. Empey, L. Pannick, L. O’Loan, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Erroll, E. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Thornhill, B. Evans of Bowes Park, B. Penn, B. Osamor, B. Thornton, B. Fall, B. Pidding, B. Paddick, L. Thurlow, L. Faulks, L. Popat, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Thurso, V. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Price, L. Parekh, L. Tonge, B. Fink, L. Randall of Uxbridge, L. Parminter, B. Tope, L. Fleet, B. Ranger, L. Patel of Bradford, L. Touhig, L. Fox of Buckley, B. Redfern, B. Patel, L. Trenchard, V. Freud, L. Risby, L. Pendry, L. Trevethin and Oaksey, L. Fullbrook, B. Rock, B. Pickles, L. Triesman, L. Gadhia, L. Rotherwick, L. Pinnock, B. Tunnicliffe, L. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Sanderson of Welton, B. Pitkeathley, B. Turnberg, L. Garnier, L. Sarfraz, L. Polak, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Glenarthur, L. Sassoon, L. Primarolo, B. Tyler, L. Glendonbrook, L. Sater, B. Purvis of Tweed, L. Uddin, B. Gold, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Puttnam, L. Verjee, L. Goldie, B. Seccombe, B. Quin, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Goldsmith of Richmond Selkirk of Douglas, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Park, L. Shackleton of Belgravia, B. Randerson, B. Walmsley, B. Goschen, V. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Razzall, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Sheikh, L. Rebuck, B. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Shephard of Northwold, B. Redesdale, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Hammond of Runnymede, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Rees of Ludlow, L. Watts, L. Haselhurst, L. Shields, B. Rennard, L. Waverley, V. Hay of Ballyore, L. Shrewsbury, E. Ribeiro, L. Wheatcroft, B. Hayward, L. Smith of Hindhead, L. Ricketts, L. Wheeler, B. Henley, L. Stedman-Scott, B. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Whitaker, B. Herbert of South Downs, L. Sterling of Plaistow, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Whitty, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Wigley, L. L. Sugg, B. Rooker, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Holmes of Richmond, L. Suri, L. Rowlands, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Horam, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Wills, L. Howard of Rising, L. Trefgarne, L. Russell of Liverpool, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. Howe, E. True, L. Salisbury, Bp. Winston, L. Howell of Guildford, L. Ullswater, V. Sawyer, L. Wood of Anfield, L. Hunt of Wirral, L. Vere of Norbiton, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Woodley, L. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Verma, B. Scriven, L. Woolf, L. Jopling, L. Wakeham, L. Sharkey, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Kirkham, L. Waldegrave of North Hill, L. Sherlock, B. Young of Old Scone, B. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Wasserman, L. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Wei, L. Lang of Monkton, L. Wharton of Yarm, L. NOT CONTENTS Lansley, L. Whitby, L. Adebowale, L. Blackwood of North Oxford, Leigh of Hurley, L. Willetts, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. B. Lilley, L. Williams of Trafford, B. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Lindsay, E. Wilson of Tillyorn, L. Arran, E. Waldrist, B. Lingfield, L. Wyld, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Blunkett, L. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Young of Cookham, L. Barran, B. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Lothian, M. Younger of Leckie, V. Barwell, L. Brady, B. Bellingham, L. Browne of Belmont, L. 11.13 pm Berridge, B. Browning, B. Bethell, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Black of Brentwood, L. L. Amendment 10 not moved. 1091 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1092

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con): My Lords, (f) prohibits the sale of patient data, public health data we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. and publicly provided social care data, except where I remind noble Lords that Members other than the all proceeds are explicitly ring-fenced for reinvestment mover and the Minister may speak only once and that in the UK’s health and care system. short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone (4) The condition in this subsection is that the agreement explicitly allows, in the case of any traded algorithm or wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a data-driven technology which could be deployed as a Division should make that clear during the course of medical device, for the methodology for processing sensitive the debate. data to be independently audited or scrutinised for potential harm by an appropriate regulatory body in the United Kingdom where it relates to trade in medical algorithms, Amendment 11 technology or devices. Moved by Baroness Thornton (5) For the purposes of this section— “negative listing” means a listing only of exceptions, 11: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— exclusions or limits to commitments made by “International trade agreements: health, care or publicly funded parties to the agreement; data processing services and IT systems in connection with the “ratchet” in relation to any provision in an agreement provision of health and care means any provision whereby a party, if (after the (1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for agreement has been ratified) it has unilaterally removed the purpose of implementing an international trade a barrier in an area where it had made a commitment agreement only if the conditions in subsections (2), (3) and before the agreement was ratified, may not reintroduce (4) are met in relation to the application of that agreement that barrier; and in any part of the United Kingdom. “standstill” in relation to any provision in an agreement (2) The condition in this subsection is that no provision of means any provision by which parties list barriers that international trade agreement in any way undermines which are in force at the time that they sign the or restricts the ability of an appropriate authority— agreement and undertake not to introduce any new barriers.” (a) to provide a comprehensive publicly funded health Member’s explanatory statement service free at the point of delivery, This new Clause would aim to protect the NHS, (b) to protect the employment rights or terms and conditions of employment for public sector employees health, care or publicly funded data processing services and those working in publicly funded health or care and IT systems in connection with the provision of sectors, health and care in other parts of the UK from any (c) to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of form of control from outside the UK through trade health or care services, agreements. (d) to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of medicines and medical devices, Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, this proposed new clause aims to protect the NHS health, care or (e) to regulate and control the pricing and reimbursement systems for the purchase of medicines or medical publicly funded data processing services and IT systems devices, in connection with the provision of health and care in parts of the UK from any form of control from (f) to provide health data processing services and IT systems for commissioners, analysts and clinicians outside the UK through trade agreements. We know in relation to patient data, public health data and that Parliament does not yet have adequate powers to publicly provided social care data relating to UK guide and scrutinise trade negotiations, and the current citizens, or process provides no legal mechanism to directly influence (g) to regulate and maintain the level of protection or permanently block trade agreements—hence the afforded in relation to patient data, public health amendments which we have discussed in Committee data and publicly provided social care data relating and earlier today. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel to UK citizens. and Lord Fox, for adding their names to this amendment, (3) The condition in this subsection is that the agreement— and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for (a) explicitly excludes application of any provision merging his important amendment about NHS data within that agreement to publicly funded health or with the one about the NHS and public health. These care services, are national assets which must not be put in jeopardy (b) explicitly excludes provision for any Investor-State or squandered in whatever the future holds for UK Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause that provides, or trade with the world. is related to, the delivery of public services, health I will be very brief, because it is late—it is shocking care, care or public health, that we are having to discuss something so important (c) explicitly excludes provision for any ISDS clause so late. We know that this Bill could mean that the UK regarding data access and processing in relation to enters into trade agreements that have a significant patient and public health data for the purposes of impact on public health and the domestic healthcare research, planning and innovation, sector without Parliament having any meaningful role (d) explicitly excludes the use of any negative listing, in their scrutiny. In this time of great uncertainty—do standstill or ratchet clause that provides, or is related we have a deal or not?—the Trade Bill is currently the to, the delivery of public services, health care, care or public health, only legislative vehicle for Parliament’s oversight of trade negotiations. As a result, additional scrutiny (e) contains explicit recognition that an appropriate mechanisms are vital to protect the NHS and public authority (within the meaning of section 4) has the right to enact policies, legislation and regulation which health as the UK begins to negotiate independent free protect and promote health, public health, social trade agreements in earnest. These trade agreements care and public safety in health or care services, and could enhance health, if controls are put in place to 1093 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1094 ensure economic gain is not given priority over health, UK citizens. The Government seek to champion the but they also have the potential to negatively impact free flow of data; this is writ large in the CEPA as well upon health services. While the Government have as in their recently issued advice notes on the subject. I repeatedly pledged that the NHS is not on the table in am also mindful that the CEPA does not in itself trade negotiations, we know that there have been change UK data protection laws. However, the detailed conversations between UK and US negotiators, Government should consider how the Trade Bill and revealing that health services have been discussed and enhanced provisions in rollover trade agreements could that the US is probing the UK’s health insurance contribute to, or detract from, the public’s perception system and has made clear its desire for the UK to of their trustworthiness and accountability in relation change its drug pricing mechanism. to health and care data usage by third parties. After I invite the Minister to accept this amendment so all, informed consent is the foundation on which UK that the Government can proceed with their trade GDPR is based. negotiations confident that Parliament has expressed The Government have stated that the CEPA deal its clear intention. I will not go through the detailed parts of this clause, because they are rather well drafted “removes unjustified barriers to data flows to ensure UK companies and completely clear in what they aim to do. There can access the Japanese market and provide digital services. It does this by limiting the ability for governments to put in place must be clear provisions on digital trade, where this unjustified rules that prevent data from flowing and create barriers affects health services. There must be clear exemptions to trade.” for all health-related technology, as well as more transparency about digital provisions in trade deals. Does the Minister consider restrictions on the free flow The noble Lords,Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, of, for example, genomic and biometric data about will more than adequately explain those data issues, citizens justifiable or not? Would he not, for example, but we must remind ourselves that the NHS has consider it helpful to commit to data localisation or longitudinal data the like of which exists in no other minimum cybersecurity standards to safeguard health system in the world. It is a huge asset from certain types of sensitive personal data? Having entered which the NHS and the British taxpayer should benefit. into the CEPA with Japan, are the Government now Does the Minister agree? I beg to move. unable to insist on such rules? In putting my name to this amendment, I am concerned to ensure that the Government have not already tied the hands of Lord Freyberg (CB): My Lords, I am delighted policymakers and regulators, including the Information to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and Commissioner. congratulate her on her excellent and persuasive speech. I am pleased to contribute to consideration on Report Agreement to subsection (3)(c) in the proposed new of the Trade Bill and to speak to the new Amendment 11. clause inserted by Amendment 11 would prevent the There is some question as to the status of new and introduction of any ISDS clause regarding data access enhanced digital trade provisions in replacement deals, and processing in relation to health data to a rollover such as the CEPA signed by the UK and Japan in or enhanced trade agreement. The Government continue September, and those promised next year in relation to to invest significant funds in research and development the UK’s CETA with Canada, which are said to and are committed to leveraging private investment to expand pre-existing agreements. These provisions have propel the UK’s R&D effort. I feel sure—in fact, I will implications for health and care in the UK and warrant wager—that securing foreign direct investment in health further discussion, despite the advice note issued by and care data will be a feature of their trade negotiation the Minister’sdepartment on Friday—hence my decision strategy. However, in the interests of guaranteeing to press the issues which I raised in Committee. value for taxpayers’ money, the Government should Amendment 11 would safeguard state control of not find themselves in a position where they are at risk policy-making and the use of publicly funded health and of legal action from their trading partners or care data. This capability is of vital importance in the multinationals if, for example, they want to offer context of the pandemic, but it should be guaranteed in discounted access to health and care data assets for perpetuity, since it underpins the efficient and effective UK SMEs to stimulate homegrown economic operation of publicly funded health and care services in development or invest to create employment opportunities the UK, as well as those data-driven health services in deprived communities in relation to the clean-up or managed at present by, for example, Public Health curation of health and care data. England and the Joint Biosecurity Centre.It also amounts The Minister remarked in an earlier reply to me to a significant national asset or resource with the that ISDS provisions do not feature in the rollover potential to function as a dynamo in relation to research, trade agreements with which this Bill is primarily innovation and continued growth of the UK’s life concerned. I also think I am right in saying that, sciences, health and care tech sectors. The Trade Bill rather than opting for ISDS in negotiating the CEPA, should recognise this and incorporate explicit provisions the Government agreed with Japan that the agreement preventing the outsourcing of digital infrastructure would be subject to the World Trade Organization’s that is critical to the nation’s health and wealth and, by Dispute Settlement Body. That is not to say that other implication, the loss of skilled personnel working in rollover agreements still to be finalised will not incorporate data analytics to support core health and care functions reference to ISDS, and nor do I profess a preference alongside research and development activity. for reliance on the WTO’s dispute settlement body Agreement to Amendment 11 would also safeguard vis-à-vis claims that might arise in relation to government the state’s ability to regulate and maintain the level of decisions on health and care data, since the UK will protection afforded to health and care data relating to pose a less significant risk to those claimants who may 1095 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1096

[LORD FREYBERG] my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and the noble be backed by big tech once separated from the European Lord, Lord Alton, for adding their names. I express my Union in earnest. I therefore stand by the amendment, support for Amendment 11 in the names of the noble which would prevent such claims arising in the first Baroness,Lady Thornton, the noble Lords,Lord Freyberg place. and Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lord Fox. It Agreement to subsection (3)(f) of Amendment 11 dovetails nicely with my Amendment 43 in seeking to reads across to a topic that I have spoken about on protect the NHS and connected services from control many occasions in this place: namely, the value of through free trade agreements; Amendment 43 seeks healthcare data. There is widespread recognition that to affirm fair access to affordable medicines for the NHS uniquely controls nationwide longitudinal international agreements to which the UK is already a healthcare data, which has the potential to generate party. clinical, social and economic development as well as The monopoly system created by the pharmaceutical commercial value. The Government should take steps business model is entrenched globally through the to protect and harness the value of that data and, in WTO’s 1995 TRIPS agreement—the Agreement on the context of the Trade Bill, ensure that the public Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights. can be satisfied that that value will be safeguarded Included within it are provisions to safeguard public and, where appropriate, ring-fenced and reinvested in health. However, concerns about affordable medicines the UK’s health and care system. The Government in developing countries,particularly access to antiretroviral have stated that the UK-Japan deal includes agreement drugs in the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, led to to encourage the Doha declaration in 2001. These identified options “the release of anonymised government datasets where appropriate” open for Governments to address public health needs, because public access to government datasets creates which are known as flexibilities. The importance of opportunities for innovative British businesses. Once such flexibilities was highlighted by their inclusion in again, the trade deal cuts both ways; I do not believe the UN’s sustainable development goals. that the general public support a “great health data However, despite these safeguards, the misuse and giveaway” of benefit to companies headquartered and abuse of these monopoly rights continue and are paying taxes overseas. taking precedence over human rights in all countries Finally, conscious of time, I encourage the Minister of the world, not just developing ones. The NHS’s to reflect upon my contribution to the discussion of spiralling drugs bill led even the Health Secretary, the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill in Committee, Matt Hancock, to protest that pharmaceutical companies and the helpful response of the noble Baroness,Lady Penn, are “ripping off taxpayers”. I have no objection to profit- which confirmed that the Government mean to undertake making by companies, but I object vehemently to people a review of pertinent regulations over the coming year, suffering and dying needlessly under the NHS because including the definition of a medical device and the of quite obscene profit-taking by pharmaceutical regulation of algorithms and artificial intelligence in companies, as happened with Vertex’s cystic fibrosis pertinent tools and innovations. I am concerned that drug Orkambi. In South Africa, private health companies the effect of provisions in some trade agreements are charging $39,000—an obscene amount—for could be to reduce access to the algorithms that underpin Trastuzumab, a WHO essential drug to treat breast them. cancer. This is a human rights issue. None can doubt the need to prioritise the safety of the public as new treatments and technologies are 11.30 pm developed in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic and If accepted by the Government, my amendment traded under both existing and new agreements that would be a powerful statement and signal to the world the Government might enter into with other countries. our intent to uphold our principles and values when Yet, according to the Government’sadvice note published trading abroad, very much in keeping with modern on 4 November, the CEPA entered into by the UK and trade agreements that nudge us towards a more progressive Japan will prevent the forced transfer of algorithms. trading environment. This issue becomes even more The Trade Bill should contain up-to-date provisions urgent with the emergence of vaccines for Covid-19. to guarantee patient safety against this backdrop because Only one vaccine, from Pfizer-BioNTech, has been it is unclear whether Article 8.3 of the CEPA—which granted regulatory approval at the moment. It has to provides a general exemption for measures deemed be kept at -70 degrees centigrade and presents huge necessary to protect human health—would override logistical challenges. We have ordered enough for about provisions concerning the forced transfer of algorithms. 20 million people but it is already clear that we must Agreement to subsection (4) of Amendment 11 would wait in line. Supplies in the numbers that we need are have that effect. notforthcomingquicklyenough.TheOxford-AstraZeneca I am passionate about harnessing the value of health vaccine, once regulated, will help us here in the UK and care data that is generated by, with and about UK enormously but only if we can ramp up its manufacture citizens. The Government should, however, take note as planned. However, we are dependent on international of those protections to which I have put my name in supply chains for getting all the necessary materials in supporting Amendment 11; these are designed to maintain the right place at the right time, and this will be no public confidence in our brave, new, data-driven world. easy task with Brexit, deal or no deal. I say all this because it is patently in our interests—and Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]: My Lords, Amendment 43 the world’s—to support the proposal by South Africa in my name provides for safeguards to trade agreements and India to waive unhelpful parts of the TRIPS to ensure affordable access to medicines for all. I thank agreement so that know-how, data and materials can 1097 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1098 be readily shared and the world can collaborate in NHS data is a precious commodity, especially given getting the right vaccine to the right people as quickly the many transactions between technology, telecoms as possible. The science community collaborated to and pharma companies concerned with NHS data. In develop vaccines in superhuman time. The billions of a recent report, EY estimated that the value of NHS pounds of public money helped, of course, but it is data could be around £10 billion a year in the benefit now the turn of politicians to do likewise and remove delivered. The Department of Health and Social Care political barriers to rolling out vaccines. The South is preparing to publish its national health and care African and Indian waiver proposal has been welcomed data strategy in the new year, in which it is expected to by the WHO. Next year, the UK will host the G7, and prioritise the health will be top of the agenda. If we do not support “safe, effective and ethical use of data-driven technologies, such the waiver, what will our position be on ramping up as artificial intelligence, to deliver fairer health outcomes.” the supply of vaccines? Past experience has shown that Health professionals have strongly argued that free it will be foolhardy to rely on the goodwill of trade deals risk compromising the safe storage and pharmaceutical companies. Will the Minister make processing of NHS data. the case for supporting the waiver proposal at the Through this amendment, the objective is to ensure WTO TRIPS council meeting coming up later this that the NHS—not US big tech companies and drug week, on Thursday 10 December? giants—reaps the benefit of all this data. This is I will not be putting my amendment to a vote. especially important given what the Ada Lovelace However, its main points will be brought back when Institute called in its report—The Data Will See You this House debates the Medicines and Medical Devices Now—the “datafication” of health, which, it says, has Bill on Report. profound consequences for who can access data about health, on how we practically and legally define health Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]: My data and on our relationship with our own well-being Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and the healthcare system. Health information can Lady Sheehan. I support her Amendment 43 and now be inferred from non-health data, and data about share her concerns about big pharma, although I health can be used for purposes beyond healthcare. So would go further and suggest that the profit motive harnessing the value of healthcare data must be allied should have no place in healthcare. Chiefly, I will offer with ensuring that adequate protections are put in three brief paragraphs in support of the cross-party place in trade agreements if that value is not to be Amendment 11, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, given or traded away. Lady Thornton. There is also the need for data adequacy to ensure Looking at the excellent UNISON briefing on this that personal data transfers to third countries outside amendment, I was taken back, as was the noble Lord, the EU are protected in line with the principles of the Lord Freyberg, to the Committee debate on the Medicines GDPR. Watering down the UK’s data protection and Medical Devices Bill, in which we were discussing legislation will only reduce the chances of receiving an the place of artificial intelligence and big data in care adequacy decision. There is also a concern that the and, of course, the dreaded algorithms. Clearly, this proposed National Data Strategy will lead to the will be a fast-growing area of care, needing careful weakening of data protection legislation, just as it monitoring and democratic oversight, which is what becomes ever more necessary for securing citizens’ this amendment seeks to achieve. What is decided by rights. There should, however, be no conflict between Parliament must not be undermined or overturned by good data governance, economic growth and better free trade agreements. As the medicines Bill debate government through the effective use of data. highlighted, these are big issues and there are huge issues around discrimination and potential misuse— The section of the final impact assessment of the accidental or otherwise—of the data, the algorithms Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement— and the whole approach. CEPA—between the UK and Japan on digital trade provisions says that the agreement contains: I wish briefly to point noble Lords to the case of Henrietta Lacks in the US, including the treatment of “Commitments to uphold world-leading standards of protection for individuals’ personal data, in line with the UK’s Data Protection her cells, the treatment of her data and the destruction Act 2018, when data is being transferred across borders. This of her privacy. It is an experience that surely should be ensures that both consumer and business data can flow across studied as we face the loss of the protection of GDPR, borders in a safe and secure manner.” as there remains uncertainty about the plans for WTO The Department for International Trade, as mentioned e-commerce rules and as there is grave concern about by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, issued a document the way in which the UK-Japan agreement undermines headed “UK-JP CEPA—a good deal for data protection”. UK domestic digital and AI regulation in healthcare However,the agreement has Article 8.3, which appears to services. provide a general exception for data flows, where this is Lord Clement-Jones (LD): My Lords, I rise to speak “necessary to protect public security or public morals or to maintain public order” to the health data aspects of Amendment 11, which has been mentioned and was so well introduced by the or noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, “to protect human, animal or plant life or health”. Lord Freyberg. I would add to the point of the noble The question has been raised of whether this will Baroness, Lady Thornton: I join her in deploring the override data protections and what its impact will be fact that we are debating this group of amendments, on access to source codes and algorithms. There is also which are so important in this area, impacting on the the question of the combined effect of Article 8.84, on NHS, at this late hour. the free flow of data, which provides that: 1099 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1100

[LORD CLEMENT-JONES] out in Amendment 11, to protect this data. I will give “A Party shall not prohibit or restrict the cross-border transfer one example. The Government have been heavily of information by electronic means, including personal information, dependent on vaccine trials for the three vaccines that when this activity is for the conduct of the business of a covered are coming out. Would people readily submit to such person.” trials and completing confidential surveys if there was Article 8.80, on personal information protection, says: any doubt that the data they submit would be treated “Recognising that the Parties may take different legal approaches confidentially? to protecting personal information, each Party should encourage the development of mechanisms to promote compatibility between If my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie is not these different regimes.” minded to support this amendment, will the Government It is all very well making reassuring noises, but what table their own amendment to ensure the greater protection public legal analysis of the language in the relevant of data processing services? articles—and how advocacy will be permitted despite this—are the Government going to provide? Why, for 11.45 pm instance, are these articles included, which the EU for Lord Patel (CB) [V]: My Lords, I speak strongly in its part will not sign up to? Unless the Government do support of Amendment 11, in the name of the noble this, there will be zero trust in future trade deals, Baroness, Lady Thornton. The hour is late, and we especially regarding the US. spent a long time discussing the matter in Committee. To date, there have been shortcomings in the sharing The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others have of data between various parts of the health service, dealt with the subject in detail and eloquently. Hence, care sector and Civil Service. The development of the I will be brief, as the last speaker before the Front-Bench Covid-19 app and the way the Government have procured speakers. contracts with the private sector for data management have not improved public trust in their approach to No matter what the Government say about the data use. There is also the danger that the UK will fall NHS not being on the table for any trade negotiations behind Europe and the rest of the world unless it takes with the USA, it is naive to think that that will be so. back control of its data and begins to invest in its own Members of the US Congress and big pharma have cloud capabilities. Specifically,we need to ensure genuine made it clear that they expect the NHS to be part of sovereignty of NHS data and that it is monetised in a any negotiation of a United States trade deal. In fact, safe way, focused on benefiting the NHS and our the chair of the Senate finance committee—a committee citizens. that will have a final say in any trade deal that will be made—said that it is clear that all goods and services With a new national data strategy in the offing, the are part of the negotiation and, furthermore, that the Government can maximise the opportunities afforded NHS would benefit from competition from US companies. by the collection of data and position the UK as a US big pharma has always complained that the UK, leader in data capability and protection. As Future with its regulatory and medicines pricing regime, does Care Capital says in its briefing on the Bill: not pay full price for medicines. It has even suggested “Any proceeds from data collaborations that the Government that, as a result, US patients end up paying a higher agrees to, integral to any ‘replacement’ or ‘new’ trade deals, should be ring-fenced for reinvestment in the health and care price. system, pursuant with FCC’s long-standing call to establish a The US data and tech firms see an opportunity in Sovereign Health Fund.” our NHS patients’records to develop patient management This is an extremely attractive concept. Retaining platforms and an opportunity to conduct clinical trials control over our publicly generated data, particularly on cohorts of stratified patient and much more. I can health data, for planning, research and innovation is quote an example: the company Palantir that has been vital if the UK is to maintain its position as a leading involved in data mining and in security and intelligence. life science economy and innovator. That is why, as It was given a contract for the price of £1, at the part of the new trade legislation being put in place, beginning of the pandemic in March, to develop a clear safeguards are needed to ensure that in trade platform for Covid-19 data. The contract was to be deals, our publicly held data is safe from exploitation, re-examined three months later. It was extended briefly except as determined by our own Government’s and now I gather that, without any public debate, it democratically taken decisions. has been granted a contract for five more years. Why would a data mining company be interested in having Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]: My Lords, data related to health and health management? The I refer to my entry in the register. This is a particularly answer is quite obvious: data is gold. In the absence of important group of amendments, on health and the any government policy in relation to security and protection of data. I thank the noble Baronesses, governance of health and patient data, it is an open Lady Thornton and Lady Sheehan, and the noble goal for tech companies. Lord, Lord Freyberg, for introducing them. As I mentioned in Committee, several US firms are I will limit my remarks to the specific issue of data, already involved in managing services worth billions which will be relevant to the recently reached super- of pounds. The prize for running services and exploiting agreement with Japan. It was discussed as recently as patient and service-based data will be worth tens of last week, when my noble friend Lord Grimstone billions of pounds. In market-driven self-service, the spoke about the importance—I agree with him— losers will be the patients and taxpayers. of a greater exchange of data flows, particularly Recently, it was reported that there was a meeting, from that agreement. However, as the noble Lord, organised by the Office for Life Sciences, between Lord Freyberg, said, it is extremely important, as set NHS England and big pharma and big tech with the 1101 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] Trade Bill 1102 intention to digitise and use the data of tens of millions New subsection (2), proposed by this amendment, of patients. Such an exercise would cost billions of stipulates that regulations can be made only using pounds, which might be funded by the tech firms, but Clause 2 of the Trade Bill if the agreement does not there was discussion about who would hold the IP. undermine the way in which the NHS is delivered, The risk we run, not only concerning data but also operated or regulated, but we believe that the conditions about how the services are managed in the NHS, is set out in subsection (2) are unnecessary. We have that they will be given to overseas companies, particularly demonstrated time and again that we are not selling American companies, that will benefit and profit from off the NHS, and this will not change. it. The NHS will be the loser, and therefore I strongly support this amendment. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. In response, the Government are clear that health and care data should only ever be Lord Fox (LD): My Lords, this has been necessarily used or shared where it is used lawfully, treated with a short debate, but it has been an incredibly high respect and is held securely, with the right safeguards quality debate. We have heard, from all the speakers, a in place. high level of understanding of the issue and the dangers The conditions set out in proposed new subsection (3) that Amendment 11 is seeking to address. I speak as would defeat the purpose of having a Clause 2 power. one of those who signed Amendment 11. I support It stipulates that no agreement can be implemented Amendment 43 and congratulate my noble friend through Clause 2 regulations, unless it contains a Lady Sheehan on her eloquent presentation, but I am range of explicit exclusions and inclusions in the text going to focus on Amendment 11 because it is a really of the agreement. Importantly, this would effectively important issue. We heard a lot about data from prohibit the implementation via Clause 2 of any continuity people who know a lot about data. trade agreement that the Government have signed, Sitting above this is the fact that the Government which does not explicitly meet these requirements, have no published cross-border data transfer policy. even though this amendment did not exist at the time Without that, it seems as though each trade deal will of their negotiation. Every single continuity agreement be a series of negotiations without a framework. The that we have negotiated over the past three years noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend would be left null and void, without an implementing Lord Clement-Jones set out the benefits of having power. We would be forced to reopen negotiations constraints and frameworks for this. It is clear from with every single continuity partner, which would no the Japan trade deal that the Government have indicated doubt be used to extract costly concessions. a level of flexibility around data. Once that has been delivered for one trade deal, it becomes a necessity for Rigorous protections for public services can be the next—and a bit more and a bit more. Even if that achieved in both positive and negative lists in services is not what will happen, I am sure the Minister understands and investment schedules for FTAs. The sectoral that this fuels the fires of people’s suspicion and commitments outlined in a schedule are only one part concern about the way in which data is being treated in of a tapestry of protections for public services, which this country. can also include scope exclusions and exceptions set From his position of great knowledge, the noble out elsewhere in the FTA. The UK is party to agreements Lord, Lord Patel, set out some specific examples—not that use both positive and negative lists, and neither of a trade deal but of trade in this country—where outcome has interfered with the Government’s right to data is already being parlayed. One things that has not regulate and ability to protect public services. been said is that, for patients to consent to their data This amendment would also place a new requirement being used, they have to believe that there will be a for exclusions on the sale of patient data—another benefit. They do not want that benefit to flow across condition that was not in place at the time of negotiation. these borders through trade; they want it to accrue to There are already strict legal, privacy and security the NHS. That is why Amendment 11 is important, controls on how companies can use patient data, and why I hope that it goes to a vote shortly and gets including principles set out by the National Data the support of Members from these Benches and Guardian and the common law of confidentiality. We beyond. have clearly set out our principles governing data-sharing The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, spoke very agreements entered into by NHS organisations, published clearly in moving this amendment. Like me, she recognises in July 2019. the benefits of trade, but only when health takes the Finally, subsection (4) of this amendment stipulates central place in our trade policy. That is what that regulations can be made using Clause 2 of the Amendment 11 seeks to achieve. Trade Bill only if they allow for the scrutiny of “medical algorithms, technology or devices” Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con): My Lords, I will now address Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lords, with respect to their Lord Freyberg, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, alongside “methodology for processing sensitive data”. the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would place a range of restrictions on the regulations I reassure your Lordships that before any medical that we can make to implement continuity agreements. device can be placed on the UK market it must be I will be relatively brief and will write to all noble compliant with the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, Lords who asked questions to be sure that they which cannot be superseded by a trade negotiation are answered. without further legislation. 1103 Trade Bill [LORDS] Trade Bill 1104

[VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE] Division No. 5 I now turn, quickly, to Amendment 43, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble CONTENTS Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Alton of Addington, L. Garden of Frognal, B. Liverpool. It would mean that the commencement Adonis, L. German, L. power in Clause 32 could be used only to commence Alderdice, L. Golding, B. the substantive provisions of the Trade Bill if they do Allan of Hallam, L. Goldsmith, L. not restrict UK citizens’ access to medicines, if they do Alli, L. Goudie, B. not curtail the Government’s power to use the safeguard Alton of Liverpool, L. Grantchester, L. Anderson of Swansea, L. Greaves, L. provisions of the agreement on trade-related aspects Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Grender, B. of intellectual property rights, if they do not delay the Ashton of Upholland, B. Grey-Thompson, B. market entry of lower-priced generic health technologies Bach, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L. and if they do not lower the bar for patentability. Bakewell of Hardington Grocott, L. Similar to Amendment 11, it also seeks to exclude Mandeville, B. Hain, L. health-related matters from the scope of ISDS provisions. Bakewell, B. Hamwee, B. Barker, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. I also note that the voluntary scheme for branded Bassam of Brighton, L. Harris of Haringey, L. medicines pricing and access—the so-called VPAS—which Beith, L. Harris of Richmond, B. is the latest voluntary pricing scheme negotiated with Bennett of Manor Castle, B. Haskel, L. industry, will continue to control the prices of branded Berkeley of Knighton, L. Haughey, L. medicines and their cost to the NHS. The VPAS runs Blackstone, B. Haworth, L. Blower, B. Hayman of Ullock, B. in conjunction with the statutory pricing scheme, Blunkett, L. Hayman, B. NHS England and NHS Improvement commercial Boateng, L. Hayter of Kentish Town, B. arrangements, and the process for NICE appraisals. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Healy of Primrose Hill, B. The 2019 VPAS will run until 2023 and, through a B. Hendy, L. series of measures, supports patient access to innovative Boothroyd, B. Henig, B. Bowles of Berkhamsted, B. Hilton of Eggardon, B. new medicines. Bradley, L. Hollick, L. Furthermore, the UK remains committed to the Bragg, L. Howarth of Newport, L. Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public Brinton, B. Hoyle, L. health, which recognises the right to public health and Broers, L. Humphreys, B. the importance of intellectual property protection, Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Browne of Belmont, L. Hussain, L. while noting that the flexibilities contained in the Bruce of Bennachie, L. Hussein-Ece, B. IP system can be enacted to address public health Bryan of Partick, B. Janke, B. needs.In addition to our commitment to our international Burnett, L. Jones of Cheltenham, L. obligations, we will also be bound by IP provisions Campbell of Pittenweem, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. designed to facilitate public health that are enshrined Campbell-Savours, L. Jones, L. Carter of Coles, L. Judd, L. in domestic law. For example, the Patents Act 1977 Cashman, L. Kakkar, L. provides for compulsory licensing in the unlikely Chakrabarti, B. Kennedy of Cradley, B. circumstances that this is required. With that, I ask Chandos, V. Kennedy of Southwark, L. noble Lords not to press their amendments. Clancarty, E. Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Clark of Calton, B. Knight of Weymouth, L. Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I thank Clark of Kilwinning, B. Kramer, B. noble Lords very much for the support that the Clark of Windermere, L. Laming, L. Clement-Jones, L. Lawrence of Clarendon, B. amendment has received from across the House. I Cohen of Pimlico, B. Lee of Trafford, L. listened carefully to the Minister but was not at all Collins of Highbury, L. Lennie, L. convinced by what he had to say. It seemed to boil Corston, B. Levy, L. down to two things. The first was that nothing should Cotter, L. Liddell of Coatdyke, B. change because you might have to change other Craigavon, V. Liddle, L. agreements—which is clearly nonsense in this day of Crawley, B. Ludford, B. Crisp, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L. technology. Secondly, if the Minister really cared about Cromwell, L. Mair, L. the NHS and data protection, the Government should Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Masham of Ilton, B. write their own amendments to the Bill, instead of Davies of Brixton, L. Massey of Darwen, B. having the rest of the House do it for them. On that Davies of Oldham, L. Maxton, L. basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House. Davies of Stamford, L. McAvoy, L. Desai, L. McCrea of Magherafelt and The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con): My Lords, Dodds of Duncairn, L. Cookstown, L. Donaghy, B. McKenzie of Luton, L. I shall now put the Question. We have heard from a Doocey, B. McNally, L. Member speaking remotely that they wish to divide Drake, B. McNicol of West Kilbride, L. the House in support of the amendment and I Dubs, L. Mendelsohn, L. will take that into account. The Question is that Eatwell, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Amendment 11 be agreed to. Falkner of Margravine, B. B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Monks, L. 11.58 pm Featherstone, B. Morgan of Drefelin, B. Finlay of Llandaff, B. Morrow, L. Division conducted remotely on Amendment 11 Foster of Bath, L. Neuberger, B. Foulkes of Cumnock, L. Newby, L. Contents 232; Not-Contents 143. Fox, L. Northover, B. Freyberg, L. Nye, B. Amendment 11 agreed. Gale, B. Oates, L. 1105 Trade Bill [7 DECEMBER 2020] United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 1106

O’Loan, B. Storey, L. Dundee, E. Morrissey, B. Paddick, L. Strasburger, L. Dunlop, L. Moylan, L. Palmer of Childs Hill, L. Stunell, L. Eaton, B. Neville-Jones, B. Parekh, L. Suttie, B. Eccles of Moulton, B. Neville-Rolfe, B. Parminter, B. Taylor of Bolton, B. Eccles, V. Nicholson of Winterbourne, Patel, L. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Teverson, L. B. Pendry, L. Fairhead, B. Noakes, B. Pinnock, B. Thomas of Gresford, L. Fall, B. Thomas of Winchester, B. Norton of Louth, L. Pitkeathley, B. Fellowes of West Stafford, L. Parkinson of Whitley Bay , L. Prescott, L. Thornhill, B. Fink, L. Penn, B. Primarolo, B. Thornton, B. Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Pickles, L. Prosser, B. Thurso, V. Fox of Buckley, B. Pidding, B. Purvis of Tweed, L. Tonge, B. Framlingham, L. Puttnam, L. Freud, L. Polak, L. Tope, L. Popat, L. Quin, B. Touhig, L. Fullbrook, B. Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Gardiner of Kimble, L. Price, L. Triesman, L. Randerson, B. Gardner of Parkes, B. Ranger, L. Redesdale, L. Tunnicliffe, L. Glendonbrook, L. Redfern, B. Reid of Cardowan, L. Turnberg, L. Goldie, B. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Rennard, L. Tyler of Enfield, B. Goldsmith of Richmond Ribeiro, L. Ritchie of Downpatrick, B. Uddin, B. Park, L. Robathan, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. Verjee, L. Goschen, V. Rock, B. Robertson of Port Ellen, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L. Grimstone of Boscobel, L. Rogan, L. Rooker, L. Wallace of Tankerness, L. Hamilton of Epsom, L. Rotherwick, L. Rosser, L. Walmsley, B. Haselhurst, L. Sarfraz, L. Rowlands, L. Hayward, L. Sassoon, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B. Henley, L. Sater, B. Sawyer, L. Watkins of Tavistock, B. Herbert of South Downs, L. Scott of Bybrook, B. Scott of Needham Market, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L. Hodgson of Abinger, B. Seccombe, B. Scriven, L. Watts, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, Selkirk of Douglas, L. Sharkey, L. Wheatcroft, B. L. Sharpe of Epsom, L. Sheehan, B. Wheeler, B. Hooper, B. Sheikh, L. Sherlock, B. Whitaker, B. Horam, L. Sherbourne of Didsbury, L. Shipley, L. Whitty, L. Howard of Rising, L. Shinkwin, L. Sikka, L. Wigley, L. Howe, E. Shrewsbury, E. Simon, V. Smith of Hindhead, L. Wilcox of Newport, B. Hunt of Wirral, L. Smith of Basildon, B. Jenkin of Kennington, B. Stedman-Scott, B. Smith of Finsbury, L. Willis of Knaresborough, L. Jopling, L. Strathclyde, L. Smith of Newnham, B. Wills, L. Kilclooney, L. Stuart of Edgbaston, B. Snape, L. Wilson of Dinton, L. King of Bridgwater, L. Sugg, B. Soley, L. Wilson of Tillyorn, L. Kirkhope of Harrogate, L. Taylor of Holbeach, L. Stephen, L. Winston, L. Lancaster of Kimbolton, L. Thurlow, L. Stern, B. Wood of Anfield, L. Lansley, L. Trefgarne, L. Stevenson of Balmacara, L. Woodley, L. Leigh of Hurley, L. Trenchard, V. Stone of Blackheath, L. Wrigglesworth, L. Lindsay, E. True, L. Stoneham of Droxford, L. Young of Old Scone, B. Lingfield, L. Ullswater, V. Liverpool, E. Vere of Norbiton, B. Livingston of Parkhead, L. Waverley, V. NOT CONTENTS Mancroft, L. Wei, L. Aberdare, L. Browning, B. Manzoor, B. Wharton of Yarm, L. Agnew of Oulton, L. Brownlow of Shurlock Row, Maude of Horsham, L. Whitby, L. Ahmad of Wimbledon, L. L. McInnes of Kilwinning, L. Willetts, L. Anelay of St Johns, B. Buscombe, B. Meyer, B. Williams of Trafford, B. Ashton of Hyde, L. Caine, L. Mobarik, B. Wyld, B. Balfe, L. Callanan, L. Morris of Bolton, B. Younger of Leckie, V. Barran, B. Carrington of Fulham, L. Bates, L. Cavendish of Furness, L. Bellingham, L. Chadlington, L. Consideration on Report adjourned. Berridge, B. Chalker of Wallasey, B. Bethell, L. Colgrain, L. Black of Brentwood, L. Colwyn, L. United Kingdom Internal Market Bill Blackwood of North Oxford, Courtown, E. Returned from the Commons B. Couttie, B. Blencathra, L. Crathorne, L. Bloomfield of Hinton Davies of Gower, L. The Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons Waldrist, B. De Mauley, L. and amendments. The Commons reasons and amendments Borwick, L. Deech, B. were ordered to be printed. Bourne of Aberystwyth, L. Dobbs, L. Brady, B. Duncan of Springbank, L. House adjourned at 12.11 am.

GC 253 Arrangement of Business[7 DECEMBER 2020] Plant Health Regulations 2020 GC 254

Grand Committee will instead move to using pest-free areas and internationally recognised classification. GB will designate Monday 7 December 2020 two pest-free areas: one for oak processionary moth, a The Grand Committee met in a hybrid proceeding. pest which is concentrated around London while being absent from the rest of the country, and one for bark beetles, which are absent from an area in the west of Arrangement of Business Scotland. Other protected zones will not need to be Announcement carried forward to pest-free areas as the whole of GB is free of these pests, meaning that existing protections 2.30 pm will be retained but specific geographic designations The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) are unnecessary. (LD): My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will The transition provisions in this instrument require now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting high-risk items from the EU—those assessed as presenting social distancing, others are participating remotely, a significant risk of introducing harmful pests and but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask diseases—to be subject to import checks and to be Members in the Room to wear a face covering except accompanied by phytosanitary certificates from 1 January when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and 2021. This represents only a limited range of the plant to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch material imported from the EU, but they are our points before and after use. If the capacity of the immediate priority because they are linked to known Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements threats or, in some cases, previous interceptions. These are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. systematic checks will provide additional assurance If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will about the status of these goods compared to what is adjourn for five minutes. currently achievable through targeted checks of goods The microphone system for physical participants arriving in GB from the EU. Import requirements for has changed. Your microphones will no longer be lower-risk plant material will be phased in from April, turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for with physical checks of these goods from July. Import remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, checks will be conducted on a risk basis, with the please press the button on the microphone stand. highest risk goods, such as hosts of Xylella, receiving Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing the most intensive scrutiny.Products such as houseplants light to turn red before you begin speaking. The and bulbs for retail sale, for example, represent a lower process for unmuting and muting for remote participants threat, so the frequency of import checks will be less. remains the same. This instrument also makes operability amendments The time limit for the following debate is one hour. to correct references to EU legislation, remove redundant EU obligations and revoke previously laid EU exit Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) legislation that is now redundant. It also makes Regulations 2020 consequential amendments to fees legislation, including amendments to allow charging for services related to Considered in Grand Committee exports to the EU. 2.31 pm The second instrument sets out four categories of regulated plant pests for Great Britain based on Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble international standards. Each list provides for different ThattheGrandCommitteedoconsiderthePlantHealth situations. “Quarantine pests” are those where we have (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. a comprehensive risk assessment to support permanent import requirements to maintain the whole country as TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department free of those pests. Secondly,“provisional GB quarantine for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner pests” provides such protection on a precautionary of Kimble) (Con): My Lords, I hope it will be helpful to basis while the necessary evidence is developed and your Lordships if I speak to both instruments, given assessed. Thirdly, “pest-free areas” protects against that they are closely interrelated. Protecting biosecurity the introduction of harmful pests into new areas. isof paramountimportance,andtheoperabilityamendments Lastly, while regulated, “non-quarantine pests” allows in these instruments provide a strong basis for our ongoing protection to prevent the further spread of future regime, including bringing the EU within the pests via planting material. scope of our controls on third-country imports. While The instrument also sets out measures in relation to the overall policy does not change, there will inevitably the introduction of plants, plant products and other be some adjustment for those businesses involved in objects into GB, and the movement of plants, plant importingplantsfromtheEU.ThedevolvedAdministrations products and other objects within GB to reduce the have given their consent to introduce these regulations risks in connection with those pests to an acceptable on a GB basis. level. I would like to cover a few examples which I The first instrument implements a new UK plant hope will be helpful to your Lordships.The GB quarantine passport in place of the current EU plant passport. pest list has been amended to focus on pests which The UK plant passport will be used for movements of pose a risk to Great Britain. This has included the regulated plant material within GB and provides assurance deregulation of pests which pose a risk only to citrus, that relevant phytosanitary regulations have been met. rice and other tropical fruits which are not grown in From the end of the transition period, GB will no GB. The regulation of all non-European fruit flies has longer use the EU protected zone arrangements, and been removed, and requirements will now focus only GC 255 Plant Health Regulations 2020[LORDS] Plant Health Regulations 2020 GC 256

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] The Minister is right to take a risk-based approach. on fruit flies which pose a risk to crops important to The development of a single-access customs and reporting GB—for example, tomatoes, pepper and cucumbers. computer program will be key. There are particular These deregulations will increase efficiency for the problems with the nurseries and packers which trade trade and movement of goods through the border by with Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. At removing checks on produce which does not pose a present, the Dutch can deliver by crossing GB without risk to GB, also freeing up time of our official inspectors any extra paperwork or inspections. Let us hope this to focus on the more significant risks. can be resolved. With a sizeable business on the island Amendments have also resulted in some strengthening of Ireland, I am keen to see progress so as to avoid of biosecurity protection against certain pests. There repeat inspections, documentation and delay. have been additions to the GB quarantine pest list, As president of the Anglo-Netherlands Society, I including Phomopsis canker, which causes dieback of am keen to see Defra, in conjunction with the FCDO, blueberries, and apple proliferation phytoplasma, which have a dialogue with key suppliers such as the Dutch. I can affect fruit quality and yield as well as tree vigour. know from what the newly installed ambassador, Karel These are present in the EU and are treated as regulated van Oosterom, has said that the Dutch embassy has non-quarantine pests, which limits the level of control greatly added to its staff in London. We need to possible. The new category of provisional GB quarantine establish and maintain contact and dialogue, here and pests includes the two-lined chestnut borer, a pest of in Holland, so that we can make use of this important oak and chestnut in North America which has recently link, now that we are no longer a member of European spread to Turkey, and the oak longhorn beetle, which institutions. is causing damage to oaks in China. I support these regulations and hope we can make a I think we would all agree that protecting biosecurity success of them. is not only of supreme interest to this Government but of supreme importance to our environment, the country 2.43 pm and particularly—if I may say so—the horticultural The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]: My Lords, it is a sector and the businesses which we want to prosper, great privilege to be able to participate remotely and and which frankly give so much pleasure to so many to follow my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. people. I remind your Lordships that there are reputedly He is much more concerned with plant health. I declare 3 million more gardeners this year because of the an interest as somebody who owns a bit of forestry current health crisis; we want that to continue. and a rural property. What we have brought forward here in these It has proved extremely difficult to get hold of this instruments is that we wish to facilitate import and statutory instrument. I had to be coached through a movement of plant material, but I hope that your process involving 10 moves in order to find the full Lordships will agree that we need to do it on a risk-basis text. It is an enormous piece of work. No doubt the manner and in a biosecure manner. For these reasons, department has gone through everything with a fine- I recommend these instruments and I beg to move. toothed comb. I was interested that the regulations draw up a contingency plan for pests and diseases before January 2023. My noble friend the Minister has 2.38 pm just told us that they are accepting the details in the Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con): My Lords, I am EU directive but leaving out the diseases that are not delighted to follow my noble friend the Minister. Some common to this country. Is what is left really adequate? eight years ago I was in his place. I thought I was busy, Do the Government propose adding any new diseases but none of us could have foreseen the workload that to the list? When will they address these matters? Defra has recently had to carry in this period of dramatic change. He knows of my interests, which are 2.45 pm that of bulb growers and packers in my family business. Lord Walney (Non-Afl): My Lords, it is somewhat We are very much affected in the import and export intimidating to follow three noble Lords who have aspects of these new procedures. My son Adam—who infinitely more knowledge and experience in this area. now runs our bulb business—is a former president of I will attempt to probe the Minister on this entirely the Horticultural Trades Association, and with it necessary but—as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, recognises the need to adapt our working methods to pointed out—highly complex and lengthy legislation. maintain, and indeed enhance, biosecurity following In his response, will the Minister say more about our departure from the European Union. the phasing of these regulations? He mentioned April The Horticultural Trades Association realises that for the less high-risk species and then a second date of these regulations have to be in place by 1 January July next year. Are the Government committed to a 2021—deal or no deal. I expect that my noble friend four-month phasing-in period? Will the system be Lady Fookes will provide the Grand Committee an fully operational by July, with all the new checks in update from the HTA and its chairman, James Barnes. place, or is July a less firm date, given its complexity? She and I were able to share in a briefing for the HTA In relation to the overall regulations, can the Minister by my noble friend the Minister and his senior team at say more about the help that his department is giving Defra. It made clear the need for a continuing partnership. to the beleaguered industry? It is seeking to understand Good communication is needed if the industry is to how it is supposed to fulfil its obligations on a number deliver on these regulations. The Government must of wider import and export issues after Brexit. There show a willingness to listen and act to avoid unnecessary is a great amount of detail involved. How are the burdens on business. Government going to help small businesses trying to GC 257 Plant Health Regulations 2020[7 DECEMBER 2020] Plant Health Regulations 2020 GC 258 make their way in this industry through this challenging or centres that sell plants. They will need to know period? They have no spare capacity beyond making whether and when an inspector is going to come and, and getting their products to market. in the meantime, they will not be free to sell the plants. Can the Minister say more about the approach to The association is also worried as to whether there will Xylella fastidiosa? I hope he will forgive me if this is be differences in the categorisation of plants—high-risk spelled out within the regulations in a way that I do plants and others. I think that my noble friend the not immediately comprehend. Many people will be Minister has made it clear that the regime will not interested in whether 1 January marks the divergence apply equally; inspectors will look to check high-risk between the UK and the EU on this threat which the plants, which is of some consolation. Minister was blocked from implementing earlier this year. Traders are also worried about the need to switch The Minister showed great forbearance last week to, from their point of view, a brand new computer when I attempted to ask a number of questions relating system in July. I believe that it is a system that already to this issue in the debate on the invasive species works for other organisations, but it would be brand regulations. Now we are in the right regulatory setting, new to the horticultural industry. If it is anything like can he clarify the checks system which is being phased my experience with computer systems, it is not a in from January and April through to July? Are the happy thing to which to look forward. I hope that my Government implementing routine checks on plants noble friend can explain a little more clearly how this and plant material which were previously prohibited will work, to make it easier for the industry as a whole. in the single market, or do these routine checks not fit My noble friend Lord Taylor has already explained with the risk-based approach which they are following? the concerns in relation to Northern Ireland, so I shall Will the Minister allow a final question about the not repeat them, but it is important to reassure the huge impact of the new system from 1 January which horticultural trades in their various forms that the goes wider than these specific regulations? Will there department is understanding of their problems. Above be a fast-track, green lane for fruit and veg producers all, I ask the Minister that he and his officials be to prevent potentially hundreds of thousands of tonnes prepared to work closely with the Horticultural Trades rotting in the queues, which we anticipate could happen Association as the main representative of the industry from next month? to make certain that, as this thing rolls out and problems appear—some of which we may have discussed already and others that may come forward later—they are 2.49 pm fully in touch and will adjust as the need arises. The Baroness Fookes (Con): My Lords, first, I declare concerns expressed hitherto reflect intense worry on my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary the part of the various nurseries and garden centres. Gardening and Horticulture Group.Of course, I welcome As I have said, they want a new system, but they do warmly in principle any system which will better protect not want to be ruined by its implementation. our country from imported plant diseases. We have all seen enough of Dutch elm disease, ash dieback and 2.54 pm sundry other horrible pests and diseases to know that Baroness Altmann (Con): My Lords, I thank my we want to prevent the import of more, notably Xylella, noble friend the Minister for his clear explanation of which affects so many garden plants. Nevertheless, the the regulations and commend the Government on horticultural industry is worried about the adjustments aiming to ensure effective phytosanitary controls to that it will have to make from 1 January. My noble protect biosecurity. I welcome the strengthening of friend the Minister referred to “some” adjustments; I some controls, such as on apple proliferation phytoplasma think that the trade would say that they are tremendously and oak longhorn beetles. However, I share some of important and worrying adjustments. the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord The regulations are long, complex and, to me, Taylor and Lady Fookes regarding the communication barely comprehensible. It is important that those who of these vast changes for the industry—I declare my will have to run with these regulations have full interest as a keen gardener—which will require significant explanations in everyday language. I am told that adjustment. On the changes particularly for Northern these are not yet forthcoming. Perhaps my noble friend Ireland, but for the whole United Kingdom, clarification the Minister can say whether this is correct, because it is required. As my noble friend Lady Fookes said, the is important that all traders, nurseries and so forth industry fully supports the aims of the regulations and have access to them. the Government’s policy to control pests and so on, My noble friend Lord Taylor mentioned discussions but it wants to know clearly what it needs to do in a with the Horticultural Trades Association, in which new regime. we were both engaged. Perhaps I may put to the Many of the issues have been relayed to me by Minister some of the worries that it has expressed, but Friends of the Earth, which has a number of concerns I must make it clear that it, as much as anybody else, on which I ask my noble friend the Minister to comment. wants to prevent pests and diseases coming into this Forexample,Regulation28(24)(c)changestherequirement country and is anxious to work with the Government in article 25(4) of regulation 2016/2031 such that the after 1 January as well as before it. It is concerned that UK will establish priority pest plans for all limited border controls to check plant health will not yet be in pests with a deadline of 1 January 2023. That is in line place, meaning that checks will be made at plant with the previous deadline, but there are concerns that destinations. According to the trades association, that the omissions may cause some delay. Can my noble means anything from 1,000 to possibly 2,000, which friend outline progress thus far on developing priority will be a considerable worry,especially for small nurseries pest plans for the listed pests? Will he confirm that any GC 259 Plant Health Regulations 2020[LORDS] Plant Health Regulations 2020 GC 260

[BARONESS ALTMANN] in the coming weeks, as we all hope they will be. There future changes to the current list of priority pests will is real information and data in that system that would be subject to the same risk assessment processes as be of use to us, and I am sure that our data would still currently used by the EU? be of use to the EU for the point of increasing both On Regulation 30(7), why is it considered necessary sides’ biosecurity. to amend article 44(2) of regulation 2016/2031 to One of the most important areas is preventing these delete the reference to the European Commission’s diseases getting to the border in the first place. Under ability to investigate third countries to see whether the present system, the Commission has a number of equivalence is properly achieved? Can my noble officials worldwide who check out producers and growers friend allay the fears of reduced democratic oversight before products are shipped or processed. We will no expressed by Friends of the Earth and explain why the longer have access to those individuals and their EU examination procedure for scrutiny and amendment recommendations, checking and audit. I would be of regulations is not fully replicated? I recognise and interested to understand from the Minister where we respect that we want and need our own regulations are on replacing that capability.In some ways, preventing and our own system, but if my noble friend is able to these risks at source is even more fundamental than address some of the concerns of Friends of the stopping them at the border. Earth, it will help ensure smoother passage and I understand the concept of risk-based enforcement reassure the industry where currently there are significant and I welcome it in all sorts of ways. It is a most concerns. efficient way to do it, but I warn the Minister that I On scrutiny of secondary legislation with respect to have too often seen “risk-based” being a euphemism environmental security or protection of plant, animal for “budget cut”. I would like reassurance on where we or human health and safety, there are concerns that are on personnel at the border, let alone out there in these will be weakened by the changes. I am sure that the rest of the world, to make sure that this system my noble friend would not wish that, but it might be works. helpful to have it on record that it is the case. I am sure Lastly, I ask the Minister to reassure us that we will that colleagues in the Committee would also support not have an open gate for six months, where one gets those aims. the impression that anything goes.Although I understand entirely that most products come through the European 2.59 pm Union, so it will be no riskier on 1 January then it will be on 31 December, I am aware that there tends to be a Lord Teverson (LD): My Lords, I declare my interest regulatory arbitrage among people who want to move as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local on substandard product. I wonder whether less scrupulous Nature Partnership, which is obviously very concerned people in this trade outside our national frontiers about biosecurity. I commend the Minister for his might try to use this open door policy to find a way to work on biosecurity. I know he champions it in sell substandard product. That would be a risk. government, which is very much to be recognised. I was also going to congratulate the officials who put all 3.04 pm this together, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. If I suffer from insomnia later this week I shall reach Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): My Lords, I for it next to my bed, I assure you. thank the Minister for his helpful introduction and for arranging a very useful briefing in advance of this This is a really serious subject because we know debate. Weknow that he takes plant biosecurity extremely that lapses in biosecurity can cost us a huge amount of seriously and I pay tribute to his work on that issue. It money. On the animal side, we still think back to foot is vital that we have effective biosecurity and phytosanitary and mouth, which cost some £8 billion or £9 billion. controls in place when we end the transition on In the case of plants, lapses can have a major impact 31 December, so we do not object to the principles set on biodiversity. This is a really important area. out in these two SIs but, like other noble Lords, I have I will bring up a few points with the Minister. First, a few questions of clarification that it would be helpful “passport” sounds impressive, but is nothing at all like for him to address. the passport we have at the moment while we are part First, paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the single market, which allows us to transfer on the first SI talks about creating “operability products within 28 nation states with security. This amendments” through will allow plant materials to go between the devolved “a ‘single market’ covering GB and the Crown Dependencies”, nations, but that is about it. but it then goes on to say that: I will follow up on the important point that the “Internal controls will also continue to apply to movement of noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, raised about IT systems. goods” I would like to understand whether those systems are within that GB single market. I am interested to know ready, whether they have been trialled and whether we what these internal controls will consist of. Do they are certain that they will work. I am not sure whether include, for example, checks on goods moving between this is supposed to happen on 1 January or in July, but England and Scotland? Paragraph 2.4 says that: perhaps the Minister could reassure us on that. “Separate but parallel domestic legislation applies in Wales, Within the European Union we have the TRACES Northern Ireland, and Scotland.” system, which I expect the Prime Minister might describe Can I double check that those separate bits of legislation as world beating. It is a very serious system. I wonder are exactly the same as the SI before us? There would whether there are plans to have some connection with otherwise be a challenge to businesses operating in TRACES in future—as long as negotiations are successful that system. GC 261 Plant Health Regulations 2020[7 DECEMBER 2020] Plant Health Regulations 2020 GC 262

Will the new plant passport reference codes referred and therefore most likely to transfer existing or new to in paragraph 12.5 be the same throughout GB, pest threats? If the EU updates its list when it becomes whether the commodity originates in England, Wales aware of new risks, what will be the system for letting or Scotland? Will all those plant passport numbers be us know so that we can utilise its intelligence and compatible? Clearly there will be business implications update our risk-based plant controls to correspond? If for businesses moving plants passported within GB, so there is an EU update, how does that impact on our why has there not been an impact assessment of the list? How will our list be updated and how will we regulations, given the inevitable business impact? notify people if the list becomes a moveable feast and Also, in response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny is constantly updated, as in many ways it makes sense Committee, Defra says: to do? “Between January 2021 and July 2021, physical inspections … Finally, Friends of the Earth says that a specific will take place at the point of destination for imports from reference to an “examination procedure” for adopting the EU.” amendments to regulations has been changed to applying I wanted more information on this, although the noble a risk assessment. This seems a watering-down of the Baroness, Lady Fookes, has I think already given me current arrangements and I would be grateful if the part of the answer. I wanted to know what “point of Minister could address that in his response. destination” really meant. My question was whether it referred to ports and airports or whether it had a 3.11 pm wider meaning. I understand from her that it does indeed have that wider meaning and that it refers to Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): My Lords, I am the nurseries and so on where the plants are ultimately most grateful to all noble Lords for this really very destined. If that is the case, it seems that there is a absorbing debate. I say categorically to all noble Lords, biosecurity issue about those plants travelling to that particularly my noble friend Lady Altmann, that point of destination before they are checked. How will there is absolutely no weakening of our resolve on the inspection process account for that? biosecurity—quite the reverse. In fact, in other quarters I may be accused of raising the bar and that is exactly Following on in terms of inspections, the whole what we are seeking to do in terms of immediate—from emphasis of this new package is that it will be done on 1 January—requirements for high-risk plants coming a risk basis, but will there also be some scope for in from the EU, precisely because we are concerned routine or random inspections? As I think that the that there is a biosecurity risk. I emphasise that. noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Teverson, said, the system we set up will be known globally to all and I say also to all noble Lords, but particularly my sundry. If we are not careful we will be rather open to noble friends Lady Fookes and Lord Taylor of Holbeach unscrupulous people if we operate a checking system and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that it is absolutely for only high-risk products. We need to ensure that the imperative that we work in partnership with businesses system we introduce is robust and has some element of engaged in this matter. I know that that is what all the random checking within it. Perhaps the Minister could officials I have been working with want to do, and clarify that. everything that we are doing is on a risk basis, based on sound science, as to what is affecting this country. I Paragraph7.4referstoseparatelegislativearrangements should also say that given the time allocated and the needed for Northern Ireland to align with the EU number of questions, there may be some questions regulations for GB goods entering Northern Ireland. that I would like to respond to in rather more detail, What are those separate legislative arrangements? Is it but we have listened to the concerns of industry to intended that we will debate them before the new year? ensure that the new requirements are as practical, I will follow up on the example from the noble proportionate and risk-based as they possibly can be. Lord, Lord Taylor, who said that Dutch bulbs could Import controls on EU-regulated goods will be pass through GB without the need for paperwork, phased in over six months from 1 January. Regulated presumably because it is, in effect, EU to EU. Again, I goods will not be held at the border for import checks did not know this, so I have learned something. Would during this initial period but will instead be inspected this apply even if the plants travelling were in a higher on a risk-targeted basis at places of destination. I say category of risk, rather than being just Dutch bulbs? to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who made the The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred to the legitimate point about whether there is a gap, that, in Friends of the Earth submission—the issue about fact, we are ensuring that there is no gap with regard investigations taking place in third countries to to high-risk goods that are coming here at the moment. determine whether or not equivalence with UK We are using the opportunity from day one of ensuring standards is being properly achieved. I echo that; it that high-risk goods, where we have already had was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord interceptions, will be inspected and checked. As I said, Teverson. Regulation 30(7) removes that reference. it is designed on the basis of risk. Our focus is on those Will investigations still take place in third countries? goods from the EU which have been deemed to represent Where is that wording now that that reference, which a significant plant health threat. seems to make perfect sense, has been taken out? I say to my noble friends Lady Fookes and Lady The second SI lists the animal and plant pests Altmann that Defra has been engaged in numerous subject to quarantine. The Minister has made it clear trade events and has distributed extensive guidance to us that the list before us is a newly compiled list directly to around 2,200 businesses by email. All known specific to GB. How does that compare with the EU trade associations have been involved in Defra events list, given that EU countries are our nearest neighbours and have been provided with detailed guidance to GC 263 Plant Health Regulations 2020[LORDS] Plant Health Regulations 2020 GC 264

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] I say to the noble Lord, Lord Walney, that protecting circulate to their members. The APHA Defra helplines against Xylella remains a priority.Wehave intensified our are actively responding to queries to support business surveillance, inspection and testing regime for Xylella readiness. The devolved Administrations have been host plants because they present a considerable danger. involved in similar processes and activities to ensure On IT, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, all business preparedness. This is a continuing matter, pre essential deliverables are ready for 1 January, including 1 January and post 1 January. essential IT system amendments, solutions for inland The noble Lord, Lord Walney, asked about what checks for transit material and UK passports, and all we are doing in the phasing. The purpose is to work external content and guidance. Recruitment is under with businesses so that we engage on the high-risk way in the APHA. On the resources point, the plants and plant products first, and from April 2021 Government are investing £705 million to ensure that all regulated goods will be pre-notified and accompanied our border systems are fully operable by 1 January. by a phytosanitary certificate. We will be extending The APHA is well on track to have in place more than physical import checks to other regulated goods from 200 new inspectors and administrative staff by the end July 2021. We will be continuing our risk-based of the year, and we expect this number to increase to programme of inland surveillance as a further check 250 full-time equivalents by July 2021. The Government that requirements are being met. in Scotland are also boosting resources. I say also to the noble Lord that we are working On audits and the audit functions carried out by closely with other departments and agencies to ensure SANTE F, these have already been incorporated into that there is a good join-up. We have also listened to the UK-wide plant health risk group arrangements. the concerns of industry to ensure that new requirements That includes a process on audits to scrutinise third are practical and appropriate, and are working to countries exporting to the UK and manage the scrutiny ensure that there are not blockages of fresh produce. from third countries to which we want to export. In response to my noble friend Lady Fookes, I say On the other point from my noble friend that have been in regular engagement with industry. Lady Altmann, the UK plant health risk group identifies, More particularly, day in, day out, there has been assesses and manages plant health risks. This working work between officials and the Horticultural Trades group will provide an equivalent level of technical Association and others.Most recently,we have undertaken scrutiny. On the question of general powers in the a series of feasibility sessions with more than event of a significant plant health risk, general plant 300 participants,and equivalent export sessions.Alongside health powers are available. these feasibility sessions, Defra is hosting a series of On TRACES, although linking to TRACES remains webinars, open to all, on the new plant health an option, with third countries able to manually input requirements. data to the EU system, during 2021 we are aiming to Northern Ireland, mentioned by the noble Baroness, use the International Plant Protection Convention hub Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend as a single platform to exchange electronic phytosanitary Lord Taylor of Holbeach, will maintain alignment certificates instead of unnecessarily doubling our own with EU regulations. These instruments focus on Great efforts by creating multiple interfaces for the rest of Britain’s biosecurity and the pests that threaten it. the world trade and the EU. Northern Ireland will retain its own separate legislative ThenobleBaroness,LadyJones,askedaboutdevolution. arrangements in relation to the continued application We are working closely with officials. Separate but of the EU’s sanitary and phytosanitary rules. A further parallel domestic legislation is being made in Scotland instrument is under development to set out the and Wales, which will ensure that plant health regulations arrangements for qualifying Northern Ireland goods are completely aligned in Great Britain, while respecting which are regulated plants or plant products and can devolved arrangements. The plant passport numbers move from Northern Ireland to and within Great Britain will be compatible. Our experts continue to enable under the Government’s unfettered access arrangements. horizon scanning, undertaken by the European and We expect to lay this instrument before the end of Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization and other the year. organisations. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose and the On the question of the basis of the review and noble Lord, Lord Walney, referred to the length of further reviews of legislation, the UK intends to ensure these SIs. I have considerable sympathy: combined that its SPS regime remains appropriate to address the they are 343 pages. They are simply amending the risks that it faces. Defra has a dedicated team of retained EU legislation to reflect risks to Great Britain specialist plant health risk analysts and managers so that measures against the introduction or spread of working with the devolved Administrations, monitoring harmful organisms continue to remain effective and emerging and revised threats. operable following the end of the transition period. I am fully aware that, in a period of change, there My noble friends the Duke of Montrose and will be businesses that are worried. I want to reassure Lady Altmann asked about pests. Of the 20 pests on all businesses that this is a very important task for the EU priority pest list, 11 already have UK contingency Defra and the APHA. We are working on these matters plans and five relate to tropical fruit flies and citrus daily and will continue to do so. This is a great pests; for the remaining four, contingency plans have opportunity for UK businesses. I understand the been prioritised for development. I say to my noble difficulties and we are working with them. But on friend Lady Altmann that our risk assessment is of the basis of these instruments being about UK and the risk to Great Britain now and our responsibilities GB biosecurity, I beg to move. for biosecurity. Motion agreed. GC 265 Plant Health Regulations 2020[7 DECEMBER 2020] Agriculture and Horticulture Order GC 266

Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof State,Department (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con): My Lords, I declare my farming Considered in Grand Committee interests as set out in the register. The matters in these instruments are closely related, as they are the first 3.22 pm produced using the powers of the Agriculture Act 2020. Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble They lay the groundwork for our new agricultural policy. That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant First, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) Board (Amendment) Order 2020 assigns additional (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. functions to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, or AHDB, enabling it to run the Motion agreed. new livestock information service—LIS—effectively. The LIS will operate in England, while the AHDB will The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) be able to collect, manage and make available information (LD): The Grand Committee stands adjourned until regarding the identification, movement and health of 3.45 pm. I remind noble Lords to sanitise their desks animals, and to allocate unique identification codes and chairs before leaving the Room. for the means of identifying animals. Livestock are currently identified through three 3.22 pm separate livestock traceability services: one for cattle, one covering sheep and goats, and one for pigs. As Sitting suspended. existing systems are species-specific, keepers with more than one species of livestock must switch between Arrangement of Business databases. The LIS replaces these separate systems Announcement with a single multi-species system. The existing sheep service in England is expected to transition to the new 3.45 pm arrangements in spring 2021. Cattle and pig services are due to transition in 2022. The service will be more The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) cost-effective and user-friendly; it will allow faster, (LD): My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will more accurate livestock traceability, enabling us to now resume.Some Members are here in person, respecting manage disease and protect human health better, giving social distancing, others are participating remotely, confidence to trading partners. The LIS will use cloud- but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask based IT infrastructure, ensuring that the system Members in the Room to wear a face covering except has capacity to scale up response when user demand is when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to high. wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Although the LIS operates in England, an important Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements part of the service is working with the devolved are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. Administrations to ensure that we can share data, allowing If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will seamless livestock movement and traceability throughout adjourn for five minutes. the UK. Defra and the devolved Administrations will The microphone system for physical participants enter into an agreement to control and share data. has changed. Toreduce the noise for remote participants, Each territory’s traceability systems will be able to your microphones will no longer be turned on at all communicate with each other, supporting day-to-day times. When it is your turn to speak, please press the business operations such as cross-border moves. This button on the microphone stand. Once you have done is called the UK view. The ability for veterinary officials that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before across the UK to be able to access the UK view is you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and essential to ensuring a rapid, targeted response in muting for remote participants remains the same. The disease-control situations. time limit for debate on the Agriculture and Horticulture The AHDB will also run a unique number Development Board (Amendment) Order 2020 and identification service on behalf of England and Wales, the two other Motions is one hour. controlling the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The new system will also allow 3.46 pm for value-added services where submitted data can be used to generate information in wider areas, such as livestock productivity and disease management. Agriculture and Horticulture Development The Direct Payments to Farmers (England) Board (Amendment) Order 2020 (Amendment) Regulations 2020 amend and update Considered in Grand Committee direct payments legislation as it applies in England. Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble The legislation governing direct payment schemes contains financial ceilings to calculate direct payments to farmers. That the Grand Committee do consider the However, it only includes financial ceilings up to and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board including the 2020 claim year. This instrument specifies (Amendment) Order 2020. how the Secretary of State will set financial ceilings Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary for England beyond 2020. Once these provisions on Legislation Scrutiny Committee financial ceilings have come into force, 2021 ceilings GC 267 Agriculture and Horticulture Order[LORDS] Agriculture and Horticulture Order GC 268

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] 3.53 pm for England can be set. This will be done by the end of Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords, I declare an interest this year. Ceilings for future years will be equivalent to as the owner of 40 acres of woodland registered with England’s share of the 2020 UK national ceiling. This the Forestry Commission, the owner of a small vineyard is because the ceilings are the starting point for payment of 100 vines and a member of the winegrowers’ calculations,before anyreductions are applied to payments association. to phase them out. The regulations also make minor changes to ensure I want to focus on the Agriculture and Horticulture that schemes continue to work effectively in England Development Board regulations. It is not immediately beyond 2020. This includes replacing dates specific to obvious from paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory the 2020 scheme year with equivalent dates that are Memorandum what horticulture is doing here. Is there not year specific. The regulations also remove rules an equivalent measure for horticulture to the statements that are not applied in England, such as those relating made about animal movement? Where does the arboreal to voluntary coupled support, which is operated dimension fit into this? Does the instrument cover in Scotland. poultry? Poultry is not mentioned. Does it cover bees? Both are important parts of livestock more broadly No substantive policy changes are made by these for people in the UK. regulations. They ensure that direct payment schemes in England can continue beyond the end of the 2020 I do not yet read anywhere that we are picking up scheme and are largely technical. The Government the opportunity that this country has with horticulture. remain committed to beginning to phase out direct One way or the other, things will change in a few payments from 2021 as part of their ambitious agricultural weeks. We know the history of horticulture in the UK. reforms in England. We will bring forward a separate We have lost out to Holland, principally because of instrument to apply reductions to the payments so the cost of energy. You only have to drive round that we can phase them out over a seven-year transition Bedfordshire and associated counties that were big in period. Devolved Administrations plan to make their horticulture to notice a substantial reduction. There is own legislation in relation to their direct payment schemes. a huge, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for import substitution, so that we can see better performance The World Trade Organisation Agreement on from horticulture and pick up on the development Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 are work that was being done and may still be done on UK-wide. The instrument ensures that after the end of fruit trees and fruit bushes, as well as vegetables in the transition period, the UK continues to comply general—all geared up to import substitution. While I with its international obligations under the WTO am not clear where the horticulture sector is outlined Agreement on Agriculture in relation to classification in the document, it seems relevant, as horticulture is and notification of domestic support and its commitment mentioned in the title. to reduce its aggregate measurement of support. Compliance with the agreement was previously managed The document talks about the Scottish Government by the EU on the UK’s behalf. This instrument is and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and limited in scope to ensuring continued compliance Rural Affairs. Having been deeply involved in the with the agreement. This is a reserved issue because internal market Bill and the challenges for liaison individual nations of the UK do not have legislative between the centre and the devolved Governments, I competence to act in these matters for other parts of would like to know what happens if the Scottish the UK. Government or the Northern Irish department of agriculture decide to disagree with the centre on their The Agreement on Agriculture divides domestic own unique identification codes. Is there a mechanism support into “green box”, “blue box” or “amber box”, whereby difficulties in this area can be put to rest? depending on the potential to distort trade. Under the agreement, each country must limit the amount of Broadly in this area, the department has put out a trade-distorting amber box domestic support given to helpful leaflet. I refer in particular to the annexe agricultural producers. The UK’s overall amber box summary of new schemes on page 22, which I studied spending limit remains unchanged after EU exit. These over the weekend. On the Forestry Commission incentives, regulations specify the amounts of amber box payments applications are apparently open all year. Are these that may be given in each UK nation. Limits have the existing ones, which have been going for a long been set, following consultation with devolved time? The leaflet says that they start in 2020. As a Administrations, at a level not constraining policy registered owner, I am not aware of having received choices, meaning that there will be no impact on farmers. any communication from the Forestry Commission The regulations also outline the procedure for about new incentives. classifying such schemes and permit the Secretary of The tree health pilot, which the Minister has mentioned State to request information from devolved before, is important because of the problems with ash Administrations where needed to enable the UK to and elm. It starts in October next year. When will this satisfy Agreement on Agriculture obligations. The be communicated fully? Are we sticking to April 2021, regulations outline the transparent and objective process as the document says? On the tree health scheme, by which UK constituent nations will share information which is also important, I see that further information on proposed support schemes in order to establish is not expected until 2024. It is difficult to understand their classification and ensure timely and accurate why the delay should be so long. notification of domestic support to the WTO. The World Trade Organization regulations are These instruments implement provisions provided important. There is not a lot to ask other than to pick for by the Agriculture Act 2020 and I beg to move. up on one point. We are a founding member of the GC 269 Agriculture and Horticulture Order[7 DECEMBER 2020] Agriculture and Horticulture Order GC 270

WTO, which I hope is to our benefit. On paragraph 6.1, CAP to ELMS, but there is no mention of this in the what has been the reaction from the devolved assemblies instrument, which states that the seven-year transition to the amber box support? If there is a difference of information is not covered in this SI. Where will this opinion, who will make the decision? It is not entirely sliding scale of support under the withdrawal from clear from the document. Finally, I would be grateful direct payments be covered? for an explanation in more depth of paragraph 6.4, The Government have committed to maintain the which also refers to disagreements. That is all I want to same financial support for farmers as they previously say. I do not want to make any reference to the direct enjoyed, at £1.8 billion annually. I am pleased to note payments. that in future payments will not be made in euros, so The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness farmers will not be subject to the vagaries of exchange Barker) (LD): I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, rates. However, in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Lord Bhatia. Oh, Lord Bhatia, we cannot hear you. Memorandum, the text states that the SI We will go to the next speaker and try to come back to “removes the need for recipients of Direct Payments to meet you if we possibly can. I call the noble Baroness, Lady ‘active farmer’ requirements”. Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. What is meant by “active farmer”? Does this mean that an inactive farmer—one who no longer manages 3.59 pm land or livestock—will receive a direct payment? Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD): The World Trade Organisation Agreement on My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to Agriculture (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020 ensure these three statutory instruments and apologise for that the UK continues to comply with its obligations missing the briefing which he so kindly provided. The under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the AoA. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board This ensures reductions in its aggregate measurement (Amendment) Order 2020 is very short and concise. It of support, a key measure used by the WTO to assess moves the functions of identification, movement and domestic support for agricultural commodities. This health of animals and allocating identification codes SI also deals with UK obligations on “amber box” from the AHDB to a new livestock information service, payments with trade-distorting effects, to which the the LIS. Minister has referred. Defra says that this instrument It is essential that animals should be able to move specifies the amounts of amber box payments that around and be accurately tracked. The LIS will make may be given in each country of the UK; they are it much easier to track animals as they will all be on limited under the AoA, and the aim is to reduce them one database, instead of three separate databases under over time. The Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny the current AHDB. However,if there are 165,000 keepers Committee has published a paragraph on this instrument, of farmed livestock and nearly 60,000 keep more than which allows for each UK Administration to design one species, that is a lot of livestock being combined and implement their own agricultural support schemes from three databases into one. Has this database been within an amber box spending envelope set by this fully tested? In other words: does it work? While it is instrument. extremely advantageous for farmers to visit only one I would like to ask the Minister about the limits of database to look at their cattle, pigs and sheep instead support at Paragraph 4 of the instrument, which refers of one for each species, it will be necessary that the to how the total sum is calculated but does not give computer systems work. Is Livestock Information Ltd any indication of what the total will be. However, it a private company, or does it operate under the auspices states that England will get 49.2%, Northern Ireland of Defra? Track and trace for animals is vital to 7.49%, Scotland 12.6%, and Wales 6.83%. This does prevent disease outbreaks and controlling disease once not include the reserve. Are these percentages permanent outbreaks have occurred. Like so many things in life, if or will they change each year? I assume these percentages the computer system fails then chaos results. I would are for the year 2021, but can the Minister please be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on this point. confirm? The Direct Payments to Farmers (England) The instrument also indicated that spending from (Amendment) Regulations 2020 ensure that farmers the reserve may be used on amber box domestic support will receive their direct payments from January 2021 in a Crown dependency. Does this include all Crown and set out financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ dependencies or only some? I look forward to the direct payments. However, I could find no information Minister’s response to my questions and those of on what these ceilings were in the actual instrument. other noble Lords taking part in this debate. As with a lot of statutory instruments, unless you have the original legislation in front of you it is very difficult to interpret what is proposed. The devolved The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Administrations have their own legislation which deals Barker) (LD): My Lords, after the noble Baroness, with these issues, so this SI relates solely to England. Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I shall call the noble Lord, Can the Minister say whether after January 2021 all Lord Bhatia, to speak. four Administrations, including England, will pay their farmers at the same rate for the same activities? If not, 4.06 pm I foresee difficulties with cross-border trade. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab): My Lords, I The direct payment covers basic payments, greening thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs payments and young farmer payments. It is my and the helpful briefing beforehand. I shall deal with understanding that the direct payments are on a sliding the SI on the Agriculture and Horticulture Development scale and reduce over the period of the transition from Board first. GC 271 Agriculture and Horticulture Order[LORDS] Agriculture and Horticulture Order GC 272

[BARONESS JONES OF WHITCHURCH] next year, with further cuts thereafter, so when will we It obviously makes sense to have a streamlined and see a separate set of regulations confirming the cuts in digitalised system for recording the movement of animals these payments? Will it be necessary before the end of around the UK. This is crucial to manage and control the year? Has Defra undertaken an impact assessment any outbreak of disease or the spread of invasive on the impact on different sectors and farm sizes? pests. We know from painful experiences of the past What financial support will be made available for the devastation that diseases such as foot and mouth farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by these can cause. That can be exacerbated by the movement proposals? These proposals are for England only, so of animals around the country. On the face of it, has Defra done an assessment of the impact of different setting up a separate body in England to provide a levels of farm subsidies being paid across the four multi-species traceability system will be a welcome devolved nations and the consequences for prices and and progressive move, and I note that it is broadly the internal market of any divergence from a standard supported by the stakeholder organisations and devolved set of prices? Administrations that were consulted. However, I just Finally, I will just say a few words on the WTO SI. have a few questions about the status and operation of Again, these have significant implications for relations the livestock information service being established as a with the devolved nations, as we discussed during subsidiary of the AHDB. consideration of the Agriculture Bill. At that time, The estimated cost of delivering the new service is there were concerns that the Bill gave the Secretary of £32 million over three years, and the net benefit over State too much power to decide how farm support 10 years is estimated to be £30 million. However, as it payments anywhere in the UK should be classified in is a limited company, does this mean that it will also be relation to WTO rules and to set limits on those a for-profit company? Will it have directors, and to payments. whom will they report? Farmers currently pay a levy The EM says that these regulations were drafted in to use the ADHB service. Will they have to pay for the consultation with the devolved Administrations and new LIS service, and how do the anticipated charges that the majority of their comments were accommodated. for farmers compare to the current costs? Can the Minister say a little more about the nature of If the new service is intended to begin in spring next these discussions and what areas of dispute remain year, can I echo the question asked by the noble with the devolved Administrations? Paragraph 6 of Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the state of the new the EM says that any devolved nation which wants to IT system? Is it already functioning and has it been make changes to a scheme must notify the others. But properly stress-tested? Has it been tested to deal with what happens if another devolved nation is unhappy the quantity of data to which she referred? Will the with these actions, and what would be the consequences existing and the new systems run in parallel for a if it followed that through? period of time, or is it proposed to have a D-day I look forward to the Minister’s response to these switch from one to the other? If there subsequently questions. prove to be errors in the data collection, who will be responsible? There could be catastrophic results, if 4.12 pm that was the case. Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]: This SI has been prepared I also ask about the devolved implications. This is by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural an England-only scheme. As the EM points out, Scotland Affairs. It amends the Agriculture and Horticulture and Northern Ireland intend to operate their own schemes, Development Board Order 2008 to assign additional issuing identification numbers for animals that would functions to that board. These functions relate to allow them to be traced. Are they all proposing their collecting, managing and making available information own digital services and, if so, will they be compatible regarding the identification, movement and health of with the English version? Will the data generated be animals and allocating unique identification codes to shared across the four devolved nations? Obviously, the means of identifying animals. This would provide animals can and do move across the borders quite a multi-species traceability system in England and frequently. Is it proposed that the English data system facilitate the tracing of livestock movements across will be able to identify and track the unique identification the UK. codes issued by the devolved nations? The department has established a subsidiary company Turning to the second SI on direct payments to named Livestock Information Ltd. This company will farmers, the Minister will know that when we were be accountable to Defra. The company will provide dealing with the direct payments to farmers Bill earlier services to six agricultural and horticultural sectors, this year, I and others pressed him on why that Bill had including the beef, sheep and pig industries in England a sunset clause which allowed for the extension of the and the milk industry in Great Britain. Of the basic farm payment scheme for one year only. The 165,000 people who farm livestock today, only 60,000 Minister’s response at the time was that the provisions keep more than one species. The nature of this industry of the Agriculture Bill would then kick in. But I said is such that the livestock move across the UK, and this then that we would need some persuading that the service will provide a unique number for each animal, transitional arrangements envisaged in the Agriculture which will ensure disease management. Bill would be ready to be implemented on 1 January Food standards are extremely important, and this next year—and so it has come to pass. regulation will ensure that food quality is monitored Since the SI was published, we have seen the on an ongoing basis. There has been a press report Government’s plan for sustainable farming announced recently which said that science has now produced a this week. It confirms a cut of 5% in the direct payments man-made product that does not require animals, GC 273 Agriculture and Horticulture Order[7 DECEMBER 2020] Agriculture and Horticulture Order GC 274 thereby having an impact on this industry. Can the earlier legislation. Indeed, the Direct Payments to Minister give some information on whether the Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 provided department is making an impact assessment of this continuity of payments for the 2020 scheme year. The new product, as it is likely to affect the whole industry, Act was focused on providing direct payments for thereby making thousands of people redundant? farmers as the UK left the EU, not on extending the scope of the regulations beyond 2020. This instrument 4.14 pm uses powers in the Agriculture Act 2020, always designed Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con): My Lords, I thank as the vehicle for our agricultural reforms, including all noble Lords for contributing to this debate. I think making substantive amendments to retained EU law. we all regret that my noble friend Lord Naseby was That allowed post-2020 changes, including the power not in the earlier consideration debate on plant health to extend direct payments beyond 2020, to be debated and plant products. I agree with him that there is together. To those who asked whether we will need considerable opportunity for growing in Britain. What new statutory instruments for direct payments each I would say is that this particular instrument relates to year, I say that the changes made via this instrument adding further functions for the AHDB, but of course are not specific to 2021. It will not be necessary to lay the AHDB currently serves six agricultural and further instruments to continue existing direct payment horticultural sectors. From that point of view, today’s schemes for future years. work is about the livestock information service specifically. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and other Bees and poultry are not engaged in this order, and in noble Lords asked about the reductions in 2021 and fact the existing AHDB order does not include bees or thereafter. We intend to legislate for the reductions to poultry. 2021 direct payments in an affirmative statutory I turn to some of the questions, particularly on the instrument early next year. Simplifications to the scheme governance structure. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones will be made through a separate statutory instrument of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington that was laid on 1 December. Mandeville, raised this. The LIS will be run by Livestock The EU rules on active farmers have not been Information Ltd—LI Ltd—a subsidiary body of the applied in England since 2017. They were thought to AHDB. LI Ltd is wholly separate from AHDB levy have added burdens and caused confusion for farmers. schemes, and it is not funded by them. LI Ltd is a This statutory instrument does not change the requirement not-for-profit company, limited by guarantee by the that you must be a farmer in order to claim direct AHDB and Defra. It will not charge fees to keepers payments. for providing livestock traceability services. Movement reporting is a statutory requirement, and the service Forgive me for being so punctilious about the impact will be fully paid for by Defra, as existing services are assessment, but this statutory instrument allows existing now. LI Ltd may in the future charge for offering direct payment schemes in England to continue beyond value-added services above and beyond statutory 2020. An impact assessment of this instrument is not requirements. Any such services would be agreed with necessary as the instrument does not introduce changes industry. It could thus include services which could for farmers, make policy changes or set reductions for help reduce or eradicate endemic disease. phasing out the payments for agricultural transition. I I absolutely understand the point the noble Baronesses will take questions on this in a separate statutory made about a new system and its readiness. The instrument debate, but it is important to say it here. underpinning information technology has been in The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked about development over a longer time period ahead of the the UK internal market. We all know that agriculture new company launching in October 2019. Defra receives is devolved. The approach to direct payments in each regular updates, and LI Ltd is currently on track to UK nation is a matter for each Administration. Direct lead with live services in spring 2021. Defra actively payments are largely decoupled from production and monitors delivery and would not decommission existing should not, therefore, distort trade. There are already traceability services until the new one was ready.Indeed, significant differences in the implementation of direct I say to both noble Baronesses that the transition to payment schemes within the United Kingdom. the new service will be incremental, so there will be On the WTO instrument, the noble Baroness, periods with old and new systems running. All changes Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord will be carefully managed so that keepers will have to Naseby asked about disputes between any of the UK enter their data only once; in other words, a pragmatic nations. These regulations set out a transparent and solution. objective decision-making process for classifying schemes My noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, according to WTO definitions. The devolved Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the separation Administrations will be able to design their own policies of traceability services for each Administration, and I and schemes, propose WTO classifications for these absolutely agree: they need to be compatible, and I schemes and provide evidence in support of the proposed confirm that this is the case. Any livestock movement classifications. All four UK Administrations will then between UK nations should allow the full continuity discuss their proposed support schemes and how to of traceability. Defra is working closely with devolved reach agreement on their classification according to Administrations and data-sharing agreements will govern WTO criteria before they are introduced. The provisions information moving with the animals. allow for a dispute resolution process, but this would I turn to the direct payment instrument. The noble be used only in the unlikely event that agreement Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about the could not be reached on classification of a new and direct payment legislation, the 2020 scheme and the amended domestic support scheme. If agreement cannot GC 275 Agriculture and Horticulture Order[LORDS] Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020 GC 276

[LORD GARDINER OF KIMBLE] The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness be reached there is provision for the Secretary of State Barker) (LD): The Grand Committee stands adjourned to make the final decision. I should emphasise that it is until 5 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks expected that the vast majority of issues will be agreed. and chairs before leaving the Room. The objective is that any disputes should be resolved through discussion and collaboration between the four 4.25 pm Administrations. Sitting suspended. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked how limits are calculated. The “amber box”limits are equivalent Arrangement of Business to the average annual level of all domestic support—green, blue and amber—given to agricultural producers in Announcement England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland between 5 pm 2014 and 2017. The amber box limits therefore accommodate current levels of green, blue and amber The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness box support, meaning that policy choices in England, Barker) (LD): My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee Wales,Scotland and Northern Ireland are not constrained. will now resume. Some Members are here in person, The limits are expressed as a percentage of the current respecting social distancing, while others are participating UK aggregate measurement of support, as set out in remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I the UK goods schedule at the WTO. must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any about direct payments. The English share of the UK other touch points before and after use. If the capacity direct payments financial ceiling is ¤2.07 billion, which of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety equates to £1.8 billion and will be used as the basis for requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn setting the direct payment financial ceiling in future the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the years. Since agriculture is devolved, it will be up to Committee will adjourn for five minutes. each devolved Administration to determine their own approach to the direct payment schemes. The microphone system for physical participants I will look at Hansard in case there are other points has changed. Your microphones will no longer be which I have missed. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, turned on at all times in order to reduce the noise for made one or two other remarks to which I shall remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, attend. In the meantime, these instruments are worthy please press the button on the microphone stand. of your Lordships’ support. I beg to move. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The Motion agreed. process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. The time limit for debate on the Direct Payments to Farmers (England) following statutory instrument is one hour. (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Considered in Grand Committee (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 4.25 pm Considered in Grand Committee Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble 5.02 pm That the Grand Committee do consider the Direct Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton Payments to Farmers (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. That the Grand Committee do consider the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) (EU Exit) Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Regulations 2020. Legislation Scrutiny Committee Motion agreed. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con): My Lords, these draft regulations will be made World Trade Organisation Agreement on under the powers conferred by the European Union Agriculture (Domestic Support) (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union Regulations 2020 (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The regulations Considered in Grand Committee amend EU Delegated Regulation 2019/945, which sets out new product standards for unmanned aircraft, 4.25 pm and EU Implementing Regulation 2019/947, which sets out new requirements for the operation of unmanned Moved by Lord Gardiner of Kimble aircraft. The regulations also make minor changes to That the Grand Committee do consider the World the Air Navigation Order 2016 by removing references Trade Organisation Agreement on Agriculture to the European Aviation Safety Agency—EASA—to (Domestic Support) Regulations 2020. ensure that flight restriction zones around protected Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary aerodromes continue to function, and to Regulation 10 Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 to ensure that the savings Motion agreed. provision applies from 31 December 2020. GC 277 Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020[7 DECEMBER 2020] Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020 GC 278

5.03 pm unmannedaircraftandassociatedaccessoriesthatconform to EU harmonised standards will continue to be Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. considered compliant with EU requirements, and those 5.08 pm requirements will be recognised in the UK. It is not Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con): My Lords, I will possible for these harmonised standards to be recognised continue. I was just about to talk about the background in UK law as yet as they are still under development. to the EU regulation, and I will focus on the unmanned Another significant amendment is replacing the aircraft element of these regulations. term “notified body” with “approved body”, thereby EU Regulation 2019/945 requires unmanned aircraft enabling the Secretary of State to approve bodies to and associated accessories to be designed and carry out conformity assessments without notifying manufactured in accordance with certain standards. It the European Commission. Other changes being made creates classes of unmanned aircraft and defines the to the regulation are mostly minor and technical in characteristics of those classes. It imposes certain nature; for example, replacing the phrase obligations on manufacturers, importers and distributors, “a language which can be easily understood” such as ensuring that an unmanned aircraft is with “English”. accompanied by the manufacturer’s instructions. It The amendments being made to the implementing also defines those unmanned aircraft whose design, regulation are minor but equally important. As well as production and maintenance shall be subject to providing the Secretary of State with the regulation- certification. This regulation entered into force and making power to designate geographical zones, this became applicable on 1 July 2019. However, transitional instrument amends various references to EU institutions provisions mean that while most existing unmanned and appoints the Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA, aircraft can continue to be sold for now, products as the competent authority for the purposes of the placed on the market after 1 January 2023 must comply implementing regulation. with the requirements of the delegated regulation. This instrument demonstrates that the Government EU Regulation 2019/947 requires unmanned aircraft are committed to ensuring a fully functioning regulatory to be operated in accordance with certain rules and framework for unmanned aircraft after the transition procedures. It creates operational categories that period. While we are focused on securing the best unmanned aircraft can be flown in, proportionate to arrangements for our future relationship with the EU, the level of risk posed by an operation. The open including in the aviation sector, this instrument will category,for the lowest-risk operations, requires operators ensure that legitimate, safe unmanned aircraft operations and remote pilots to abide by certain requirements. If can continue while ensuring effective oversight if we those requirements cannot be met, an authorisation get to the end of the transition period without a deal. I must be obtained to fly in the specific category. The commend the regulations to the Committee. highest-risk operations, including the use of unmanned aircraft designed for carrying dangerous goods or 5.13 pm transporting people, must occur in the certified category. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]: My This requires the certification of the unmanned aircraft Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction and the operator, and, where applicable, the licensing to our debate on unmanned aircraft—sometimes, of of the remote pilot. This regulation also imposes course, described as drones. They are very different requirements on operators and remote pilots to ensure from the drones of the Drones Club of PG Wodehouse, that operations are carried out safely and securely. Bertie Wooster and Jeeves, which we know so well, For example, remote pilots must meet any applicable although the way we keep hearing some Ministers—with competency requirements for the flights they undertake. the notable exception of course of the noble Baroness— The regulation entered into force on 1 July 2019, but it going on about “taking back control”, I see some is not applicable until 31 December this year. Therefore, connection with drones. If taking back control means it will still be retained in UK law. the House of Lords and the Commons dealing with As civil aviation is a reserved policy area, both hundreds and hundreds of these statutory instruments, regulations apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. there is surely some connection. With the outcome of The withdrawal Act will retain both the delegated and the discussions on our exit from the European Union implementing regulations in UK law after the end of still poised between no deal and a very poor deal, it the transition period. This draft instrument makes the does not bode well either way for the future. changes necessary so that the regulations continue to How does all this affect unmanned aircraft? First, function correctly. This is essential to ensuring the as the Minister rightly said, the EU regulations deal continuation of an effective regulatory regime for with the product standard for unmanned aircraft—that unmanned aircraft. is the present. Do Her Majesty’s Government have any This instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure plans to change these and, if they do, why? How because it creates or amends a power to legislate. For would any change affect the export or the import of example, it provides the Secretary of State with the drones? power to make regulations designating geographical Secondly, we are going to take control of rules for zones for safety, security, privacy or environmental the operation of third-country unmanned aircraft reasons. operators. Could the Minister tell us how far beyond The most significant amendment being made to the our shores this will apply, particularly in relation to delegated regulation is providing a new power for the the channel? We have a lot of disputation about fish in Secretary of State to designate standards after the end different parts of the waters around us. We do not of the transition period. Until that power is exercised, want that to apply also to unmanned aircraft. GC 279 Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020[LORDS] Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020 GC 280

[LORD FOULKES OF CUMNOCK] I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out Could the Minister also tell us whether there are clearly the effect of these important regulations. I any plans to alter the requirements on maximum appreciate that the intention is, broadly speaking, to take-off mass, speed, height, serial number, or the carry on the existing law from the European Union characteristic dimensions of three metres or more, and and European Union Aviation Safety Agency, an on whether the drones are designed for transporting approach with which I certainly agree. Too often we people or dangerous goods? Also, do the Government seem to be taking back control just for the sake of it, plan to make any changes on the age limit for operating so it is good to see, in these regulations at least, unmanned aircraft if we take back control on it? If so, inherent in our approach a degree of honesty, and that in what direction and why? Equally, does she envisage we are having consistency from 1 January 2021. I am any changes on licensing operators when we take back also pleased to see a transition period provided for in control? Are any changes planned on arrangements the regulations—another transition period—until 1 for insurance, or for the examination requirements for January 2023, permitting unmarked, unmanned aircraft, obtaining a licence? The Explanatory Memorandum legacy drones, to continue to be placed on the market tells us that there are “no immediate plans” for the in the United Kingdom. I am sure that that is a Secretary of State to designate new standards, but it common-sense measure. would be helpful to know whether there are plans I have several questions for the Minister, some of beyond the immediate future, or we must wonder why which will echo what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, it is so vital to take back control in this area. has already touched on. Are there any plans for divergence As the Minister said, the territorial extent of the from the existing EU position? There are none in the regulations is the United Kingdom, I am glad to say, immediate future, as we know, but is there any plan in but paragraph 6.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum the medium to long term and, if so, from what date says that the Act also contains powers for the devolved and what form will that divergence take? I think we Administrations to make secondary legislation. As she need to know that. Further, I ask for reassurance on will know, there has been a lot of controversy over whether there is a close working relationship with the the allocation of the powers being returned from the EU so we are kept au fait with any future plans that we European Union, as I know only too well as a member may wish to incorporate into United Kingdom standards of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, so from the EU—or, at least, be aware of what EU it would be helpful if she could clarify the respective developments are in this area. responsibilities. She said in her introduction that civil I appreciate that these regulations deal with reserved aviation is a reserved function, as we know, so why are matters, as has been stated. However, clearly, as so the devolved authorities mentioned? I advised her of often, whether matters are reserved or devolved, there this query in advance, when she very kindly asked us is an interface with the devolved Administrations in the points that we might raise. I hope that she will be Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I welcome the able to deal with it in her reply. fact that that has been reflected in what the Minister said and, indeed, in the regulations themselves. I seek I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister—I reassurance from the Minister that we are ensuring warned her about this as well—what lessons have been close liaison with the devolved authorities where learned from the incident in December 2018, when appropriate. drones closed the whole of Gatwick Airport. Could she tell us what action the Government have taken, or One such area would be that there is a desirable propose to take, as a result of their investigations? nexus in the area of employment. In that regard, I ask my noble friend—and I have given her advance notice These unmanned aircraft can be useful in many of this—about job prospects at the West Wales Airport ways, such as for delivering medicines urgently, for in Aberporth, Ceredigion; and in Caernarfon, Gwynedd. traffic surveillance or in other areas, but they can also I have no doubt that my good friend the noble Lord, be deployed by those wishing to cause harm. Can the Lord Wigley, will touch on that as well. In both areas, Minister assure us that there is close co-operation with drones may well be used; I hope they are. There is the police and intelligence services to prevent any such clearly a key role for drones in maritime search and use, particularly by terrorists? rescue, which would be reflected in both those areas. Finally, I sympathise with the Minister for having But also, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, touched to deal with this and many other statutory instruments. on, they can be used in counterpollution work, defence Nevertheless, notwithstanding all this, I look forward use and traffic surveillance, as well as having commercial to many more when we return to membership of the possibilities, for videos of events such as weddings and European Union, as we undoubtedly will one day, other gatherings. It would be good to see the United because it is the most successful multinational co-operative Kingdom in the forefront of this—and, of course, I body in the world today. With that, I am sure other am particularly keen that Wales should be in general noble Lords will be glad to know that I am well within terms, and in both those sites. I hope that the Minister my time. can comment on the feasibility of job prospects and enterprise in the United Kingdom generally,and certainly 5.19 pm in relation to Thales and Bristow in the two sites to Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]: My Lords, which I have referred. It would be good to see the UK it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes lead the way in the unmanned sector of aerospace. of Cumnock, who, as always, displayed great insight I certainly support these regulations, but overall I and perception in his analysis of the current position. would like the Minister to give us an undertaking that, I found myself in agreement with many of his points. at the heart of government policy, there is a drive to GC 281 Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020[7 DECEMBER 2020] Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020 GC 282 ensure that the United Kingdom leads on the unmanned is the Minister’s current thinking? Is it to carry out a sector of aerospace, providing public facilities on search review in September 2021, or will we do a complete and rescue, as I have said, as well as in surveying for review in 2023? pollution and traffic surveillance, in defence interests Lastly, I have four general questions. In the world and commercially, and that we seek to protect and we live in, we know that people do copycat actions. We enhance high-value jobs in Wales and throughout the know that what happened at one of our airports one United Kingdom in a safe and secure way. Christmas was awful. Can we be reassured that actions have been taken to anticipate a possible copycat somewhere 5.24 pm in the UK along the lines of what happened at Gatwick? Lord Naseby (Con): My Lords, I too welcome the That is a highly forecastable risk. opportunity to ask a few questions. Paragraph 4 of the I apologise for not forewarning my noble friend on Explanatory Memorandum is on the extent and territorial this, but I read it myself only in my catch-up reading. I application, which is obviously the UK. However, draw her attention to an article in the Financial Times having sat through many sittings on the internal market on 5 December, which says: Bill recently, I know that there is a sensitivity between “Russia’s most notorious cyber security company, Kaspersky, the devolved nations and the centre. In what way will is trying to diversify into anti-drone technology”. we ensure that there is clear linkage and working I do not expect an answer from her this afternoon, but together on this important and developing issue? My the principle behind these new systems is to help noble friend Lord Bourne made the same point. airports and private landowners to jam drone signals.Does I understand why we are taking the approach of that come under her area of responsibility? If it does, designated standards. My only question is: will the is this not an area that we should be cognisant of? UK be informed of cases where there were difficulties The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the question in registering a new drone or drone variant? If we are of exports and imports. That was a fair question, and not aware of where there are difficulties, somebody one I was concerned about as well. might try to register here at some point. Finally, it is pretty clear to me that Amazon and Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum maybe others are looking to produce delivery drones. discusses the design and manufacture of unmanned That market will not stay static for two or three years. aircraft. Are these requirements, and in particular the I just hope that Her Majesty’s Government are keeping oversight mechanisms, now ready or are we still working a close watch on that and that they will, if necessary, on those for the near future? produce our own requirements and not wait on the On the implementing regulations, paragraph 7.11 EU to produce its own. refers to the current categories of “open”, “specific” and “certified”. Do we intend to change those at all, 5.31 pm or do we think that they will remain for the foreseeable Lord German (LD): My Lords, the main thrust of future? I hope that there is no suggestion in paragraph 7.12 these regulations is to make changes to existing EU that we will drop the minimum age of 16 for the legislation on unmanned aircraft. They result from control of remote pilots and that there would therefore leaving the EU and, where references to bodies, be no exemptions at all. I hope that the Minister can organisations and powers have an EU context, they confirm that that is the position. are to be replaced by a UK context. Paragraph 7.13 says that: In April, EU Regulation 2020/1058 made amendments “Rules for conducting an operational authorisation are also to regulations 2019/947 and 2019/945, and it was set out in Article 11”. passed by Parliament. Regulation 1058 has very detailed I admit that I have not read Article 11, and I apologise information within it on all sorts of measures, including for that, but perhaps the Minister could mention conformity, badging and everything else. I am not whether there will be any significant changes there. On certain whether those amendments have been carried paragraph 7.15, as a matter of interest, are the clubs forward into the regulations that we are debating. I that allow any form of drone activity all registered would be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether with the department or some other body? the SI before us, which refers to the two earlier EU On paragraph 7.16, I put on my hat as a former regulations, has included Regulation 2020/1058. In a Deputy Speaker in the other place. This is such a mass of great detail, that regulation has put in place young and dangerous market, in terms of potential lots of information which goes behind those earlier danger to life, that the negative procedure is not regulations. Can the Minister confirm that? appropriate. Her Majesty’s Government need to think Some aspects of the 2020 regulations do not now long and hard about using the negative procedure, as come into force until July 2021. We know that some do referred to paragraph 7.16(a) and (b), because those not come into play here fully until 2023. We have a instruments will go through on the nod. Unless people start date of the last day of this year when the existing have a particular knowledge of the market they will be EU regulations come into force. We are being taken unlikely to raise anything on them. I would have through those today, so I would like some clarity from thought that it would be much better to use the the Minister on the precise timetable that is emerging affirmative procedure for a period of time in that from here as to when events happen as a result of these situation, particularly as we are taking this over from regulations and existing regulations. That information Europe. It would be a great deal safer for everybody. will very much be required by those who are I initially thought when I looked at paragraph 7.8 manufacturers, sellers, importers or operators of drones that we should carry out a review after three or five years, from 1 January. That is just three weeks away and they but then we have the September 2021 situation. What need to know when to prepare and what to prepare for. GC 283 Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020[LORDS] Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020 GC 284

[LORD GERMAN] 5.37 pm For those who need to register, the registration date Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I will not be able is 31 December. Is that a start date by which registration to match other noble Lords who have spoken in the becomes mandatory or is there a grace period? Over number of questions or points I want to raise. The what period do we expect all registrations to take answers that the Government give to the questions place? That goes back to the earlier question on a and points raised so far will highlight whether these timetable. Are we fully prepared for that registration? regulations provide for significant changes in the months Do we have staff trained in the considerable detail ahead or whether they keep largely to the status quo. underpinning these regulations, including Regulation We will all listen with interest to the Government’s 2020/1058? For example, do they know which airspace response. is permissible for what categories of unmanned aircraft, These regulations keep the effect of the policy what levels of registration are required, what categories framework established by the EU implementing and drones fall into, and the distinction between uninvolved delegated regulations. They ensure that certain provisions people and crowds? There is a lot there which we relating to unmanned aircraft will be retained in UK would expect staff to have been trained for. law and will continue to apply after the end of the Regulation 6 refers to designated standards.It provides transition period in less than four weeks’ time. The EU direction and some description of what these standards implementing regulation applies from the end of this are meant to achieve, and how, but at no point does it year and sets out the rules and procedures for the set a date when these designated standards are to be operation of unmanned aircraft. The delegated regulation introduced. It is clearly welcome that there will be sets out the requirements for unmanned aircraft and some time, otherwise people involved in manufacturing for third-country operators of these aircraft. this equipment may not be given adequate notice and As we have already heard, the regulations enable will not be prepared. Until that time, we are following the Secretary of State to designate standards after the the standards set out in EU regulations, but these end of the transition period. In the meantime, unmanned technical standards are important, as they prescribe a aircraft that conform to current EU harmonised standards, large part of the protection that the people of this will be considered compliant with the EU requirements country need from failures in the products themselves, recognised by the UK. The main consequence of these particularly as described in paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of regulations is that, since we will no longer be a part of the new article in Regulation 6. This will have an the EU and of the European Union Aviation Safety impact on manufacturers and distributors of unmanned Agency, the European Union standard CE marking aircraft systems not only in construction and design will be replaced by an official marking recognised terms, but in some of the safety aspects which arise. within the UK. The same product standards as currently apply will be maintained. As a result, unmanned aircraft Other noble Lords asked about insurance. I should that lawfully bear the CE marking can continue to be be grateful to know whether this is required for those put on the UK market. who operate and run these pieces of equipment. As I understand it, the implementing regulation provides for a transitional period until 1 January 2023 I am also concerned about the definition of a toy. during which unmarked—that is, CE or UK—unmanned Clearly, if you can classify something as a toy, it rules aircraft will continue to be placed on the market. The out registration and the same level of regulation as for Government intend to use the powers under any of the other aspects. A toy is currently defined in the regulations to designate standards by the end of European legislation as a device which could be attractive the transitional period. Like other noble Lords, I ask to a child. If we continue with that definition, it whether the Government have any view on whether provides a great deal of freedom of use. The European the designated standards from the end of the transitional Union suggests marking devices as being unsuitable period will vary to any significant degree and, if so, in and not for the use of children under 14 and thereby what way from the current standards under the not a toy. Do the Government think this is sufficient? implementing regulation. Have these regulations been Wehave already seen what has happened to scooters—now drawn up on the assumption that a deal will need to be a daily scene on our streets. They are definitely not agreed with the EU before the end of the transitional toys, though many toy scooters exist. period at the end of 2022? If so, will any changes be On weddings, do we need to seek the written agreement necessary if one is not agreed? of participants? This is part of the distinction between Finally, the new UK mark will come into force uninvolved people and crowds. from the beginning of next year—in a few weeks’ time—but there will be an overlap period with the CE Finally, I turn to drone operator registration. Have mark, which I understand will be accepted until the the Government taken any steps to recognise the beginning of 2023. What is the reasoning behind both interoperability of registration between the UK and the overlap and its length? any other countries? This is a complex area in which technology has made rapid advances. In such an 5.41 pm environment, the Government need to be fleet of foot Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con): My Lords, I thank and future-proof their legislation. For obvious reasons, all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft these regulations do not touch on the speed of amendments. I shall endeavour to get through as many technological progress. I hope that the Government questions as possible. I am grateful to all noble Lords can keep ahead of the curve and make arrangements who gave me advance warning of what they were to introduce appropriate legislation at the right time. going to raise. In some circumstances, I have been able GC 285 Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020[7 DECEMBER 2020] Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020 GC 286 to get an answer; in others, I am afraid the system age of an operator of an unmanned aircraft will failed me and I did not. I am also conscious that there remain as 18 years old—we have had this discussion are questions that I will not be able to answer. I shall previously with the Air Traffic Management and study Hansard and write if necessary. Unmanned Aircraft Bill. To remind noble Lords, there As a number of noble Lords have recognised, the is a difference between the operator of an unmanned opportunities for unmanned aircraft are enormous. aircraft and a remote pilot. The purpose of the Government’s framework for the The implementing regulation contains provisions operation, manufacture and approval of unmanned relating to registration and competency. As the CAA’s aircraft is to provide certainty such that commercial, drone and model aircraft registration and education military and all sorts of operations can take place. service—which is a rather long-winded way of describing The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said that unmanned the system you sign yourself up to—was originally aircraft are drones. I remind noble Lords that, of created with these EU regulations in mind, they came course, they are also model aircraft—we have been as no surprise to anybody, so there are only some very round that loop before—and it is only fair and right small differences between the system we already operate that model aircraft as well as drones are included in and the new system. I hope that goes some way to the regulations. reassuring the noble Lord, Lord German. My noble friend Lord Naseby asked whether clubs The implementing regulation requires operators in were signed up with the DfT. It is the individual who the “open” category to register if their unmanned registers, but the DfT works closely with all sorts of aircraft is 250 grams or more, or if it has data capture clubs in the unmanned aircraft space to ensure that capability. Remote pilots must also pass a competency our framework is working effectively. test. There are a number of other requirements, but it The noble Lord, Lord German, asked whether is not worth going into great detail on the requirements registration arrangements were in place. One has had of, for example, the “specified”and “certified”categories. to register a drone for more than a year now. That As we noted before, the risk associated with those system is completely in place and is run by the CAA. It flights increases with each category. includes a competency test for remote pilots. The On insurance, the implementing regulation does operators of a drone must register it with the CAA. I not require an operator of an unmanned aircraft to am not aware of any interoperability outside the UK hold insurance unless required by other relevant legislation. at this time. It is the responsibility for every operator to ensure that I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that we they have appropriate insurance cover. speak to the devolved Administrations relatively frequently—I have my next call with them on Thursday. My noble friend Lord Naseby and the noble Lord, We talk about all sorts of things, as do my officials. Lord Foulkes, talked about Gatwick, which really was The devolved Administrations are aware of this legislation a watershed in our understanding of the world of and have not raised any concerns. On paragraph 6.2 of unmanned aircraft and the catastrophic events that the Explanatory Memorandum, referring to DAs’powers can happen. In this case, the catastrophic event was to correct deficiencies in matters that are not reserved, actually an economic event, when Gatwick was essentially we do not anticipate there being any such matters; this shut down. Since then we have made huge strides in is just a standard line in EU withdrawal Act SIs. understanding how we can respond to illegal unmanned aircraft activity. We accelerated our testing activity The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, had a number of and we launched the counter-unmanned aircraft strategy, questions, nearly all of which I picked up, but I am including unmanned aircraft remote pilot competency afraid that some have slipped me by. I will address one testing and operator registration, before we even had of them, because it was also mentioned by my noble to under the regulations. We extended aerodrome flight friend Lord Naseby. I think that a difference of opinion restriction zones and we developed legislative proposals, on age limits will be coming down the track. I will talk which noble Lords will recall. The counter-unmanned about age limits, registration, licensing and insurance, aircraft strategy is an incredibly important Home Office which I know is of interest to many noble Lords. This strategy.It safeguards the benefits of unmanned aircraft, instrument amends the delegated and implementing which is our goal, but also ensures that people are safe regulations to remove the deficiencies; that is absolutely and that anybody using unmanned aircraft maliciously clear. The powers, of course, do not allow us to amend or negligently can be appropriately dealt with. the policy of the regulations through this instrument. Therefore we are dealing simply with the impact of There are a number of things within that strategy. EU withdrawal. We recognise that there is no one silver bullet. My On age limits, Article 9 of the implementing regulation noble friend Lord Naseby talked about counter-drone brings in a minimum age of 16 for remote pilots, with technology. We are, of course, in touch with many of the option for member states to reduce that by up to the operators and developers of that technology; the four years for the “open” category, which is the lowest reality is that it remains a work in progress and probably risk, and by up to two years for the “specific” category. always will do. However, great strides have happened This instrument provides the Secretary of State with in the world of counter-drone technology, and the the power to make regulations relating to Article 9 of Government are really at the heart of that. the implementing regulation on age limits. It is the The noble Lord, Lord Rosser,talked about divergence Government’s intention to lower the remote pilot and the impact of 1 January 2023. The product standards minimum age by the maximum number of years and set out in the delegated regulation do not have a then to remove it as soon as we are able to in 2021. substantial practical effect until 1 January 2023, and However, I reassure noble Lords that the minimum non-compliant unmanned aircraft can continue to be GC 287 Unmanned Aircraft Regs. 2020[LORDS] Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations GC 288

[BARONESS VERE OF NORBITON] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, put on the market until that date.However,this instrument Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) provides the Secretary of State with these new powers (Con): My Lords, this statutory instrument proposes to designate standards for unmanned aircraft after the an important change to the Renewable Transport Fuel end of the EU exit transition period. Until that power Obligations Order 2007, or RTFO. Renewable transport is exercised, unmanned aircraft and associated accessories fuels are more expensive than fossil fuels and rely on that conform to the EU harmonised standards will the RTFO support mechanism to create demand and continue to be considered compliant with EU incentivise their supply. This SI changes the price used requirements, and those requirements will be recognised to calculate any buy-out payment due under the renewable by the UK. However, those EU requirements and transport fuel obligation certificate trading scheme. It harmonised developments are still under development, would increase that buy-out price from 30p per litre so it is not possible for me to comment on the content to 50p per litre. This change is necessary to ensure the of future designated standards. continued supply of biofuels and other renewable Very briefly, on the UKCA mark that the noble fuels by increasing the potential level of support. It Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned, the mark can be used would also ensure continued delivery of carbon savings. from 1 January 2021 but, prior to that, it is not The 2007 order establishes targets driving the supply required to be used. From 1 January 2023 will be when of renewable fuels in the UK. It does this by placing the mark is required. obligations on larger suppliers of fuel to ensure the Very briefly also on Wales, it is playing a cracking supply of renewable fuels. The amount of renewable role in developing the drone sector, including at West fuel that must be supplied is calculated as a percentage Wales Airport and Snowdonia aerodrome in Caernarfon. of the volume of fossil fuel supplied in a calendar year. The Government are providing support to develop the This obligation level, or target, has increased over time drone sector through the drone pathfinder programme and is currently 9.75%. These increases have supported and the future flight challenge. The first successful the market for renewable fuels and were accompanied projects in the future flight challenge were announced by improvements to their sustainability. The RTFO in November and include the gold dragon project at target gradually increases until 2032 at which point, Snowdonia aerodrome, which will develop sensor without further legislative agreement, the yearly target technology for drones working with public services would be 12.4% in each subsequent year. such as police and mountain rescue. That was a brief run-through of as many questions The 2007 order also provides for a certificate trading as I possibly could. I shall follow up with a letter. I scheme, which supports a market for suppliers of commend these regulations to the Committee. renewable fuels.Under the scheme,obligated fuel suppliers must acquire sufficient renewable transport fuel certificates, Motion agreed. or RTFCs, to meet their obligations by either supplying renewable fuels or purchasing RTFCs. Alternatively, The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness they can make a buy-out payment. This buy-out option, Fookes) (Con): My Lords, the Grand Committee stands and increasing its price, is the focus of the statutory adjourned until 6.15 pm. I remind Members to sanitise instrument. their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. Enabling suppliers to pay a buy-out rather than 5.52 pm having to acquire RTFCs caps the cost of the RTFO Sitting suspended. scheme. It protects consumers of fuel from exceptional spikes in the price of renewable fuels. However, in normal market conditions, the continued success of Arrangement of Business the RTFO scheme relies on the supply of renewable Announcement fuels. Biofuels are the main type of renewable fuel 6.15 pm supplied under the RTFO. Recent increases in the cost of biofuels relative to petrol and diesel mean there is a The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) potential commercial incentive for suppliers to make a (Con): My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will buy-out payment. Any reduction in biofuel supply will now resume.Some Members are here in person, respecting affect greenhouse gas emissions savings in transport, social distancing, while others are participating remotely, creating a gap in UK carbon budgets. It also could but all Members will be treated equally. If there is a damage our biofuels industry and future investments Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for needed to keep us on the path to net zero. five minutes. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour. The RTFO applies UK wide and has been highly successful in reducing carbon emissions. Through it, Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations we have seen the average greenhouse gas savings of renewable fuels increase from 46% in 2008-09 to 83% (Amendment) Order 2020 in 2019. The renewable fuels supplied under the RTFO Considered in Grand Committee saved almost 5.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide 6.15 pm emissions in 2019, equivalent to the emissions of 2.5 million combustion engine-powered cars. Indeed, Moved by Baroness Vere of Norbiton renewable fuels currently contribute around a third of That the Grand Committee do consider the the savings required for the UK’s transport carbon Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) budget. Clearly, we need to ensure that the RTFO Order 2020. continues to provide effective market support. GC 289 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations[7 DECEMBER 2020] Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations GC 290

The amendment in this statutory instrument does rather than looking at a problem in an overall fashion, just that and follows a consultation carried out over which includes where the investments take place—for the summer. The consultation proposed two options: example, are less favoured parts of the country helped an increase in the buyout price from 30p per litre to by this, or by the greater reduction in emissions in either 40p per litre or 50p per litre. The vast majority of various places, or the reduction in traffic congestion? respondents, 56 out of 61, agreed with the Government’s Does the work in the Green Book take us to a new assessment of the urgent need to increase the buyout place in terms of looking at investments on a broader price. Of these 56, 45 agreed with our preferred option: rather than a narrow focus? to increase the buyout price to 50p per litre. In proposing this statutory instrument, the department 6.25 pm has carefully considered a balance of interests, recognising that potential additional costs in meeting the RTFO Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]: Having listened to my noble would ultimately fall to the consumer and the need to friend Lord Blunkett, I feel a lot happier to know that maintain a competitive biofuels market which continues I am not the only one who is not an expert on this SI. to deliver reductions in carbon emissions. I believe The purpose of the order, as the Minister said, is to that the increase in the buyout proposed strikes the increase the renewable transport fuel obligation buyout right balance. I commend this instrument to the price for fuel suppliers to 50p per litre from 30p per Committee. litre for obligation periods beginning on or after 1 January 2021. Annual obligations for the supply of 6.20 pm renewable fuels are set for fuel suppliers under a similarly named 2007 order that commenced in April Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]: My Lords, I am very 2008. The obligations can be met by supplying renewable grateful to the Minister and particularly grateful to fuel, by purchasing renewable transport fuel certificates her for allowing us to forewarn her of questions that from other suppliers, or by paying a sum—a buyout we might want to raise, not least because I think we price—to the Secretary of State. As the Minister said, are all exploring our way in terms of this order. There it is that sum that this order has the effect of increasing. have been times, over the five years that I have been in The Government have said that increasing the buyout your Lordships’ House, when I have come into the price to 50p per litre will mitigate the risk of suppliers Chamber or Committee not to pontificate or provide buying out of their obligations and the UK losing pearls of wisdom but actually to learn something. greenhouse gas savings. Renewable fuels supported That is why I signed up for this Grand Committee under the RTFO order have reduced greenhouse gas discussion this evening. emissions from transport over the last 12 years and, as I confess that I was unaware of the technicalities we heard from the Minister, they are contributing a and substantial impact that this programme has had third of the greenhouse gas emissions required for the since 2007 on carbon emissions and the way in which UK’s current transport carbon budget. trade and the buy-out system works. So I have given Further, the Government have said that the buyout notice to the Minister of my simple—or even simplistic— price increase will help protect the renewable transport question: are we talking here about providing incentives fuel obligation scheme against rising prices for biofuels to expand and develop this critical market for the future, and ensure that investment in UK biofuel facilities or are we providing a balancing disincentive for market continues to have a market. As I understand it, in failure? Although I have read the Explanatory Note to August 2019 the cost differential between renewable which the Minister referred, I am still completely confused fuels and the fossil fuels for which they are a substitute by it, and sometimes I do not mind admitting it. was approaching a level at which it would cost less to buy out an obligation under the RTFO rather than 6.22 pm continue to supply renewable fuels. Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]: I support this Motion, but Fuel suppliers are likely to pay the buyout only if I believe that we have such a long way to go in meeting the cost of renewable transport fuel certificates regularly the strategic objective of zero emissions targets by exceeds 30p per litre. In January this year, offers for 2050. I wanted to ask the Minister a question. I have renewable transport fuel certificates for the 2020 been studying the Green Book review published last compliance year were 30.25p per litre and since the week, which enjoins government departments and those beginning of July offers have regularly been higher. seeking to spend money to fix their minds on the Offers for 2021 RTFCs have been reported as high as strategic objective ahead. In this case, I select net zero 33p per litre in September this year. RTFCs are issued by 2050 as the strategic objective. I wonder how you for every litre of sustainable and renewable fuels blended. build a case of contributory objectives which help you Lifting the buyout to 50p per litre will result in a to get to the strategic objective. I built an imaginary maximum additional cost of 2p per litre to the motorist. case, aimed at reducing the amount of diesel burned in The renewable transport fuel obligation is designed this country by very large amounts, by various actions. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport It mostly concerns electrification of the railway and fuel by setting annual biofuel blending obligations for the substitution of HGVs by electric trains.My calculation fuel suppliers. As we heard from the Minister, the shows that you would save a lot of diesel fuel—and I obligation is 9.75% this year and will increase incrementally mean a lot. to 12.4% by 2032. Could the Government say in their I am not absolutely convinced yet of my figures, but response on what basis that incremental increase is I wanted to ask whether, in seeking a strategic objective, determined; what was the percentage figure fixed in one is hamstrung by the different departmental objectives 2008; and, in 2032, what proportion of greenhouse gas GC 291 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations[LORDS] Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations GC 292

[LORD ROSSER] The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised a number emissions required for the UK’s current transport of issues not wholly related to the SI before us today. I carbon budget will be contributed by renewable fuels would like to reassure him that the Department for supported by the RTFO order? Transport is studying very carefully the changes to the Green Book, and we will consider all the issues he I have just a few questions on the Explanatory raised, in terms of looking at where we are going to do Memorandum. Paragraph 7.6 refers to civil penalty our investment in transport infrastructure in the future. provisions and states: The noble Lord will also know that we have a transport “It is planned to consider this matter as part of other changes decarbonisation strategy,which my department is working to the RTFO Order that will be consulted on in due course.” incredibly hard on at the moment, and which will What are the serve as a path to net zero in the future. “other changes to the RTFO Order”, and by when will they have been consulted on? On the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum Rosser, in 2019 there were 19 obligated suppliers covered refers to “obligated suppliers”. How many obligated by the terms of this order, and these are obviously the suppliers are there in total who are covered by the ones that supply significant amounts of fuel, which I terms of this order? will come on to. Of course, there are exempted suppliers, Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also mentioned. refers to a maximum cost for 2021 to 2030 that would These fuel suppliers supply less than 450,000 litres of be incurred if all suppliers opted to buy out of the transport fuel, and they are exempted from the obligations main obligation in each obligation period. How much of RTFO. In these circumstances, 450,000 litres is not has been paid out under the buy-out provision option a very large amount. Furthermore, there is a second under the RTFO Order 2007 to date in total, and of group of suppliers that supply less than 10 million that how much has been in the last two years for which litres of transport fuel, and they do not have an figures are available? To what purpose has any such obligation on the first 450,000 litres of their supply—again, money been put? a few percentage points of their supply. This is basically to ensure that there is no cliff edge when you get to Paragraph 13.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum 450,000 litres. refers to transport fuel suppliers who are exempt from the renewable fuel obligation and fuel suppliers for In 2018 and 2019, there were not many fuel suppliers whom the obligation is reduced. What is the reduction benefiting from this reduction in obligation—four and for those in that category, and how many suppliers are two respectively.Toput that into context, those exemptions in that category? Finally, is it felt that the case still represented a very small fraction of the 52 billion litres exists for having that reduced rate, bearing in mind the of total fuel supply covered by the RTFO in 2019 and Government’s desire to enable renewable fuels to of the potential greenhouse gas emissions savings. We contribute to the UK’s future carbon budgets? have no plans to review this.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about 6.31 pm the amount of buyout incurred. To date, there has Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con): My Lords, I thank been no significant buyout under the main obligation all noble Lords for their consideration of this statutory in the 2007 RTFO order. Buyout amounts relate to a instrument. I join other noble Lords in declaring my very small number of companies and are therefore previous lack of a full understanding of this very considered commercially sensitive. In the last two years— important area. It has been a very useful discussion 2018 and 2019—all obligated suppliers have met their and I am grateful for the questions raised, particularly obligation. In 2019, two obligated suppliers used buyout those raised by noble Lords who were able to share to make up around 10% of their main obligations. them with me in advance. I will, of course, write where That meant that less than 0.1% of the total main I do not cover everything. obligation was met through buyout—the sort of level To start with the question raised by the noble Lord, we hoped for. Lord Blunkett, when he asked if it is an incentive to maintain supply or a punishment to maintain the All money received from suppliers buying out is market, I am going to be very unhelpful and say that it paid to the Treasury. It is Consolidated Fund and not is neither. The increase in buy-out price is simply ring-fenced for any particular purpose. I can reassure necessary for the market to function. We need to make noble Lords that the Government take investment in sure that there is a continued supply of biofuels and biofuels and sustainable fuels very seriously. We have other renewable fuels under the RTFO and ensure the developed a target to incentivise specific advanced continued delivery of carbon savings. Obviously, a renewable fuels because they are of strategic importance buy-out price set at the wrong amount would not for use in sectors which are difficult to electrify—for allow that market to function, because suppliers would example, heavy goods vehicles and aviation. We have then pay a buy-out, rather than having to acquire the an advanced biofuels demonstration competition called RTFCs which, as a whole, obviously cap the cost of the Future Fuels for Flight and Freight Competition, the RTFO scheme and protect the consumer from the which provides up to £20 million of capital funding exceptional spikes. So, the buy out is one element of a and offers real opportunities.As part of the Government’s very well-designed and successful scheme, and it serves 10-point plan, a new package of support for sustainable as a release valve to make sure that the consumer is aviation fuels has been announced. This includes a never forced to pay a very large amount for their fuel. further £15 million in competitive funding to support GC 293 Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations[7 DECEMBER 2020] Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations GC 294 the production of sustainable aviation fuels in the UK. planned for next year is still being worked up. We are Although the money goes to the Treasury, sometimes reviewing whether there is an opportunity to increase it comes out again. greenhouse gas savings from the scheme, in addition to technical and consequential changes, such as those The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned how the to civil penalties. We anticipate that the consultation RTF obligation level has changed over time. The level will also include measures in response to suggestions was set at 2.5% for 2008-09 and has been increased on from industry as to how the RTFO might support, for several occasions since. Increases to the obligation example, recycled carbon fuels, and the rules relating level to 2032 were made in 2018, following an extensive to renewable hydrogen. We expect the consultation to consultation in 2017. These increases to targets were be concluded next year. set on the basis of providing longer-term policy stability for industry, increasing the supply of waste-derived This is a small and thankfully non-controversial fuels and encouraging the production of advanced amendment which has been subject to consultation. low-carbon fuels. The RFTO is expected to deliver All noble Lords now understand a little more about greenhouse gas emissions savings of nearly 7 million RTFO than previously, which is all to the good because tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2032. it is an important scheme which supports the renewable As laid out in the Government’s energy and emissions fuels industry. I hope that the Committee will join me projections 2019, this will make up around one-sixth in supporting this statutory instrument. of transport sector savings in 2032 as a result of policies implemented so far. The Government recognise Motion agreed. that we have to do more to reduce emissions during the period to 2032. As I mentioned previously, the The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness DfT will publish the transport decarbonisation plan Fookes) (Con): That completes the business before the very soon. Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned a future Room. consultation on the RTFO order. The final content of the consultation on further changes to the RTFO Committee adjourned at 6.40 pm.