...On the environment, India will be burning more coal next
year than this year, and more the year after than next year.
In China, coal will remain a very large of the power mix.
Would the amendment debar the Government from doing trade
agreements with India or China in respect of goods
produced using power? It would seem quite a wide provision to
require the Government to require something from the other
Government. I may have misunderstood it. I also recognise
that it would only enable the Government to do these things;
it would not require them to do them, yet I am not sure that
the distinction indicates a real difference. If it was on the
statute book, the Government might feel obliged.
Amendment 15 raises the question of non-regression. As I read
it, and I may be wrong about this, too, it would place an
obligation on the Government to require that the agreement
incorporated the principle and that the principle applied to
both sides—not just to us but to the other side. I may have
misread that, but, if so, my point about China
and India perhaps applies to it, too.
...Turning to Amendment 9, let me reassure the House
that the scope of the Trade Bill is to ensure the continuity
of effect of existing EU trade deals. The noble Lord, Lord
Kerr, asked about standards in deals
with India and China. I reiterate
that the power in Clause 2 could not be used to implement a
trade agreement with those countries because the EU does not
have trade agreements with them and the Clause 2 power is
limited to countries with which we have a trade
agreement...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
