Should Parliament have more say over trade agreements?

Dr Emily Jones, University of Oxford

International trade negotiations may seem a world away from the food on our plates. But the decisions that the Government makes in trade negotiations will impact many areas of our economy and our lives, from farming and food standards, to manufacturing, financial services and accounting, to the regulation of the digital economy, and healthcare.

With so much at stake, do we have a decision-making process that leads to wise judgements when it comes to trade deals? And what is the role of Parliament in that process?

Over the next few weeks MPs will debate and finalise two important pieces of legislation – the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill. The Trade Bill is an opportunity to make sure that Parliament has proper oversight of trade negotiations and can hold the Government to account on the outcomes. Both Bills provide an opportunity for MPs to shape the Government’s approach to trade negotiations, including in the areas of food, agriculture and the environment.

Why parliamentary scrutiny matters

In our system of Parliamentary democracy, each of us has a Member of Parliament whose job it is to represent us and other constituents in the House of Commons (even if we didn’t vote for them). Their main task is to make sure our interests and concerns are considered when the Government makes new laws and policies. MPs also play an important scrutiny role, closely examining and investigating Government policies, actions, and spending, to make sure the Government is acting in the public interest.

Trade agreements are important. Yet, as things stand, as I explain in a recent paper, Parliament doesn’t have the powers to properly scrutinise them. The negotiation and ratification of international trade agreements falls under the Royal Prerogative – the making of international treaties is one of the few actions that Ministers can take without the approval of Parliament. Unlike members of the US Congress and European Parliament, our MPs don’t have any influence over the Government’s negotiating objectives, they are not privy to what is happening in the negotiating room, and they are not guaranteed a debate and vote on the final outcome.

Parliament’s main role is to scrutinise any legislation that is needed to implement trade agreements. But this happens too late in the process to influence the content of agreements, and MPs only examine those aspects of trade deals that need new legislation. Food standards are a good example. If the Government agrees in a trade agreement to change food standards, Parliament is unlikely to have a say, as Ministers are empowered to make direct changes to relevant legislation.

How trade agreements affect food, farming and the environment

So how do trade agreements affect food, farming and the environment? Chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef often feature in the news headlines, but trade agreements have wider implications.

Food standards are a concern to many UK citizens. The UK currently follows the EU’s approach, which is pretty cautious. The EU has banned some specific food imports, including chlorine-washed chicken and it imposes strict controls on genetically modified organisms. It also has more stringent requirements than other countries, which imported food has to meet in order to be sold on the EU market. Pesticides are a good example. When it comes to grapes, for instance, the US government allows grapes to contain 1,000 times more of the insecticide propargite than is permitted in the EU. This means that a grape farmer in California has to adhere to the EU’s stricter standards in order to sell grapes in the EU market.

Now that the UK has left the EU, the UK can decide its own food standards. There are some World Trade Organisation rules that the UK will need to follow, and food standards have to be justified on grounds such as human and animal health, or environmental protection, as David Henig explains. To what extent do we want to stick with the EU’s cautious approach?

The UK’s trade negotiations with the US – which are well underway – have brought this decision to the fore. Farmers in the United States are understandably keen to see the UK change its food standards so that it is easier for them to sell in the UK market. While this may lower food costs, many UK consumers are worried this will lead to imports of lower-quality food. UK farmers are worried that they will be undercut by imports of food produced to less stringent standards. Environmentalists are worried that there would be a race-to-the-bottom in the use of pesticides that harm bees and other insects, and reduce biodiversity.

The trade agreements we negotiate have broader implications for food, agriculture and the environment too. By making it easier to trade across borders, trade agreements reduce the costs of purchasing food that is produced in other countries. They help make sure our supermarket shelves are stocked with mangoes from Ghana, green beans from Kenya, and coffee from Colombia, generating much needed jobs and income for their producers.

But there are trade-offs. A UK trade deal with New Zealand is likely to make lamb cheaper for UK consumers, but Welsh farmers are worried that they will be driven out of business. And while increased competition may reduce the cost of food, it also puts pressure on producers to cut costs, which contributes to low pay and poor working conditions for farm workers in the UK and other countries. Some forms of agricultural trade, notably air-freighted fruit and vegetables emit high levels of carbon at a time when we urgently need to reduce emissions.

Why the Trade and Agriculture Bills matter

The trade agreements the Government is negotiating will affect our everyday lives. Ministers will have to make difficult judgement calls. It’s possible for trade agreements to contain stringent food standards, uphold labour rights and help improve working conditions, and to encourage more environmentally-friendly methods of production and transport. But such measures may also increase costs.

Precisely because difficult choices have to be made, how can we - citizens, workers, business owners, farmers, and consumers - voice our interests and concerns to the government? It is the role of MPs to listen to us, but MPs do not have the requisite powers to shape the government’s negotiating objectives and to scrutinise trade agreements to ensure they are in the public interest.

A series of amendments have been proposed to the Trade Bill that would provide MPs with meaningful scrutiny. These include the right to be consulted on negotiating objectives, access to full and timely information and, critically, a debate and vote on the final outcome. Amendments have also been proposed that would ensure food imports meet domestic standards on food safety, animal welfare, and environment; and ensure trade agreements uphold international labour standards, further the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and help the UK to meet its net zero emission targets.

Trade agreements have far-reaching policy implications and it’s important that our MPs can provide effective oversight and scrutiny. The next few weeks provide an opportunity to make sure this happens.