Today, Parliament is considering the Trade Bill.
The Bill will be an important element of the independent trade policy the UK will operate now that we have left the EU. It contains measures that will deliver for UK businesses and consumers across the UK, providing continuity and certainty as we take action to build a country that is more outward-looking than ever before.
Speaking about the Trade Bill, Richard said:
"I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about aspects of the Trade Bill. Although I was on the list to speak in the debate, there is always a risk when an MP is 53rd on the list that they may not be called and so it proved to be! As a result, I will briefly set out my thoughts below.
Over the past year, constituents have raised with me a range of issues which are potentially important considerations as the UK seeks trade agreements as part of our “Global Britain” ambitions. Concerns that our food standards might be undermined; that animal welfare standards would not be similar to our own; that the NHS might be undermined by trade in pharmaceuticals or health services; about the importance to avoid agreements that enable UK supply chains to undermine basic labour rights; and to enshrine in law that the UK cannot sign a trade deal with a country engaged in genocide.
The very breadth of concerns raised shows that it is detailed scrutiny over the progression of a trade deal which is the proper, most effective role for Parliament. A final "up or down" parliamentary vote on major trade deals would be too blunt tool, wielded too late in the process to be effective.
Look no further than how Parliament handed the recent ratification of the UK EU Trade Cooperation Agreement. The Agreement was reviewed and passed within the day. Did all Members of Parliament read the Agreement? I doubt it. Did all Members of Parliament fully appraise the trade-offs within it? Of course not.
Parliament already has the power to delay ratification of a deal under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Parliament also has the power to vote down enabling legislation thereby disempowering the implementation of unsatisfactory elements of a trade bill.
When this bill began its passage in Parliament last year, I challenged the Minister to bring forward proposals for stronger scrutiny of the larger trade deals, for example with the United States, China or the Trans Pacific trade zone. In December, the Trade Department did announce stronger scrutiny including: a commitment to publish trade objectives at the start of negotiations; to provide reports to Parliament at the conclusion of each round of trade talks; to provide more extensive scrutiny powers to the relevant Select Committee including the sharing of draft Treaty texts; and, finally, providing an independent Impact Assessment when the treaty is signed.
This range of detailed powers, available over a longer duration of time and extending over the entire period of a trade negotiation do, in my view, provide the basis for Members of Parliament to provide advice, guidance and oversight on our future trade deals."