Extracts from Committee stage (Lords) (day 2) of the Trade Bill - Jan 30
|
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD):...That is part of the complexity that
leads to Amendment 51 in my name, which is in the view of these
Benches necessary to align with our biggest market in order for us
to exploit trade with other markets. We need to triangulate as
little as possible, which seems to be what the Government seek. The
best way to do that is through these arrangements. I understand
that there is tacit agreement from the Government on this point,
because the announcement last week of an...Request free trial
Lord Purvis of Tweed
(LD):...That is part of the complexity that leads to
Amendment 51 in my name, which is in the view of these Benches
necessary to align with our biggest market in order for us to
exploit trade with other markets. We need to triangulate as little
as possible, which seems to be what the Government seek. The best
way to do that is through these arrangements. I understand that
there is tacit agreement from the Government on this point, because
the announcement last week of an in-principle agreement
with Israel to roll over our agreement
means that it seems that the United Kingdom is in principle
considering what is in effect a rules of origin regime with the EU,
the EEA, Switzerland, the Faroe Islands, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt,
Jordan, Israel, Montenegro,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Turkey—all countries that have in
effect a rules of origin regime...
Baroness Kramer (LD):...My understanding is that when South Korea was first approached about treating EU content as local content for goods whose final point of export is the UK, its answer was, “That is interesting and we think that it would be a fair thing to do, but of course we would expect goods originating in China and forming part of the content of South Korean goods to be given the same kind of benefit. We think that there is an opportunity to make sure that there is an equal playing field in this area, because negotiating with the UK is not the same as negotiating with the EU. We are now in different circumstances”. I wonder how many countries aside from South Korea which are involved in these rollover agreements have come back to the UK—I can see that Israel would not because it is not particularly in that situation—saying that they wish to have the new flexibility that we are requesting reflected in a change in the flexibility that they are being offered. It would be helpful if the Government could let us know if that is happening... Lord Lilley (Con):...Can the Minister confirm that we will be able to join the pan-Euro-Med convention on rules of origin if we have a free trade agreement with any member of that convention—for example, Israel? I believe that when you belong to it you can begin to assess diagonally, as they say, the components of your goods when you export among them. If that is open to us, it will ease things as far as we are concerned for a large group of countries... ...My point was that there is the pan-Euro-Med convention which has the same rules of origin among all the countries. Cumulation is allowed between them. You can join the convention when you have a free trade agreement with one member of it—at least, that is what I am asking the Minister to confirm is the case and will be the case when we have a free trade agreement with Israel, to start with... Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD):...We understand that the Government have made only two agreements so far. One is with Switzerland. The text from the Swiss party was immediately put online; the text from the British side came subsequently. But we should do a case study of the announcement last week of what our Government said was an agreement in principle to sign a free trade agreement with Israel, while the Israeli Minister, Eli Cohen, said that the text was “concluded” on 23 January. I asked the Library to find a copy of that agreement—but there is none. I understand from the Government that the text will be placed in the House alongside an explanatory memorandum and an associated parliamentary report in due course, once the agreement has received signature. If we had been following the stages under the European system, things would have been different. The European Parliament would already have been involved in the content of the talks, and been allowed the parameters for discussion. The Parliament would then be told that the negotiators were close to finalising the agreement, and the texts would be sent at an informal level to the Parliament. Once the agreement had been initialled, the initialled text would immediately be sent to the Parliament. I understand that, if it is an agreement in principle, but we do not know whether our text with the Israeli Government has been initialled; perhaps the Minister can clarify that. If it were then signed, that text would be included too. Potentially, therefore, there are five steps when the European Parliament would have been involved—whereas we are not. Why is that fundamentally important? The Israeli agreement is a good example. It touches on many aspects of international law, human rights and domestic legislation. Our domestic legislation, in addition to the European agreement, on the treatment of goods from the illegally occupied territories and settlements, means that we as a Parliament should be aware at the early stages of what our Government are discussing with the Israeli Government... Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con):..The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the Israeli trade agreement. There is agreement in principle on an FTA, but it is subject to a few remaining technical issues so the final text is not quite ready. When a continuity agreement is finalised, it will be laid with an Explanatory Memorandum and report... Baroness Kramer: I am sorry to trouble the Minister but I have one question. I did not quite understand what he meant just now by the word “finalised” when he talked about the treaty with the Israelis. If he meant that the treaty would be a signed done deal and would then be brought to Parliament so that we could look at it, would we scrutinise it? Would it be like an SI, whereby we cannot impact the terms in any way, so we simply have the nuclear option of accepting or rejecting it? The message of this House has been that we regard scrutiny as something far more contributory than that, involving engagement in the process at a much earlier stage. That is why we are extremely troubled. Will the Minister clarify exactly what he means by “involving Parliament”—after the fact or before the fact?
Viscount Younger of
Leckie: As I said earlier, I have some more
remarks to make about the process for future trade
agreements. What I said about the Israeli agreement was that
when a continuity agreement is finalised, it will be laid
with an Explanatory Memorandum and report and will be under
the affirmative procedure... |