Yorkshire peer urges Conservative backbenchers to support amendment to protect farmers in trade deals

The House of Lords today inflicted a further defeat on the Government in backing an amendment to the Trade Bill which would require ministers to publish draft negotiating objectives for a trade agreement, which would need to be approved by MPs.

Concerns have been raised that trade deals made in the post-Brexit era could undercut British farmers in favour of foreign, cheaper producers with potentially lower standards.

And Conservative peer Anne McIntosh said high standards of food production must be maintained.

Baroness McIntosh said: “It is absolutely vital that the Trade Bill reflects the concern expressed in the country about maintaining the high standards of food production in the country.

“Yorkshire famers lead the way with high quality products produced to the highest standards of animal health and welfare and environmental standards. Consumers have demonstrated in their millions that they support British farmers in this way and want to keep these standards in place without the threat of substandard imports.”

And Baroness McIntosh said she hoped the Government would bring forward a compromise amendment, as it did in the 2019 Trade Bill.

Others have expressed worry over human rights aspects of the Bill, and the Government only narrowly rejected a change to the Bill last month which would have outlawed deals with countries that are committing genocide, following a Tory backbench revolt in the Commons.

Baroness McIntosh said although she felt these had been addressed in other amendments “there would be no harm in clarifying the position”.

But she said when amendments from the Lords returned to the Commons on February 9, she expected “concessions on standards and parliamentary scrutiny might be made”.

“A lot hangs on whether more than 20 backbench Conservative MPs will support the amendments and that remains in doubt,” she said.

“Yet the maintenance of standards was a key manifesto commitment of the Government in the 2019 General Election campaign and strongly recommended by the Government adviser Henry Dimbleby in his interim report on National Food Strategy.”

She added: “As the Trade Bill nears the end of the parliamentary proceedings farmers will be on the cusp of a new era of trade policy which we can embrace with confidence.”

Proposing the amendment for a greater say today, Lord Lansley said: “The Government is now moving ahead with negotiations on new trade deals not just continuity agreements.

“It does mean that now is the time and this is the legislative opportunity to strengthen Parliament’s role.”

He added: “What this amendment now does is it ensures that the Government consults the devolved administrations and given the breadth of trade issues who could seriously argue they should not and that they take the Commons with them on their objectives?”

He said: “We have not had the responsibility for scrutiny of trade agreements for over 40 years. They are a new and substantial responsibility and Parliament must have its say.”

He argued the existing scrutiny procedure was “insufficient to carry the weight of the trade deals in prospect”.

“It has to be strengthened,” said Lord Lansley.

He went on: “This is not a party issue but a parliamentary issue. Give Parliament its say.”

.

However investment minister Lord Grimstone of Boscobel urged peers not to seek to make further changes to the Bill following its return from the Commons.

He said: “We must be mindful… of the role of this House within Parliament. We are not the democratically elected House and we do not express the will of the people in the same way as the Commons.

“Our primary role is to scrutinise and where appropriate to ask the Commons to reconsider. They have done this and so we should think long and hard before disregarding their clear pronouncements.”

Opposing the changes sought by Lord Lansley, he said: “Of course it is only right and proper now that we have left the EU that Parliament should have powers to effectively scrutinise the Government’s ambitious free trade agreement programme.

“However, this amendment does have significant deficiencies that we believe are inappropriate for our Westminster style of Government and would limit the Government’s ability to negotiate the best deals for the UK.”

He pointed out the Government had “significantly enhanced its transparency and scrutiny arrangements”.

If Parliament was not satisfied with a negotiated trade deal it already could effectively block ratification, he added.

Peers backed Lord Lansley’s amendment by 304 votes to 260, majority 44.