Why doesn’t your MP get a say on new trade deals?
David Lawrence, Trade Justice Movement
If the government wanted to build a new railway line, raise taxes or allow shops to open for longer on Sundays, they would have to get a bill through Parliament. MPs and Lords would enjoy months of debating and amending, poring over the details in committee meetings, with binding votes at every stage.
If the government wants to sign a new trade deal, however, there is no requirement to involve Parliament at all.
Until this year, this wasn’t too much of a problem, because for the last 50 years our trade policy has been managed by the EU. After Brexit, however, the UK will revert to a system of treaty scrutiny which was established after the First World War - in fact, it was specifically designed to limit the amount of input from MPs, to prevent them from influencing secretive defence treaties.
Under the current system, there is no requirement for the government to tell MPs when it begins negotiating a new trade deal. MPs have no right to see negotiation objectives or negotiation texts, and no right to regular updates during negotiations.
Perhaps most significantly, they have no guaranteed vote on the deal even after it has been signed. The text of the agreement has to be placed in the House of Commons Library for 21 days, where they can read it, but there is no easy way of getting a debate or a vote on the deal unless the government grants it. And even if they do vote against a deal, this is not binding: the most it can do is delay the deal.
Liz Truss has promised that MPs will in fact get a vote on the deal, and that the government will publish negotiation objectives before starting formal negotiations. She has also said that the text of signed deals will be made available to certain parliamentary committees before other MPs get to see them. However, none of these commitments are set out in legislation, and the role of MPs remains limited in practice.
This lack of parliamentary scrutiny over trade deals isn’t just one of those weird, British constitutional quirks - it is a serious matter which affects all of us.
Scrutiny of trade deals matters because trade deals matter: they impact on the quality of food on our supermarket shelves, the environmental standards used by farmers and manufacturers, the rights of workers, the online safety of our children, the viability of the NHS and the survival of industries after Brexit. Trade deals can restrict the ability of governments to regulate in the public interest, and often encourage liberalisation of standards, since the aim of these deals is to boost trade rather than promote environmental and social objectives.
This is why you may have seen all sorts of headlines about chlorinated chicken and the NHS being sold off to Donald Trump. While some of these outcomes may sound extreme, it is true that trade deals can impact on a huge range of policy areas, with very little transparency and accountability. Leaked documents detailing discussions between UK and US negotiators showed the US demanding that climate change is not mentioned in the trade deal, and that the US wants the UK to change its standards to allow US food imports - which are often made using practices banned in the UK, such as chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and all sorts of pesticides, antibiotics and low animal welfare regulations.
Most voters in the UK assume that, whatever Trump’s plan for British chickens might be, their MP must have the power to vote against it. The fact is, however, that MPs have very little say in the matter at all. While the government has been keen to reassure voters that standards will be upheld, without Parliamentary scrutiny in place, there is no way MPs can hold them to that promise. The government has also repeatedly opposed amendments in the Trade Bill to protect standards and give MPs a vote on all new deals.
To ensure new trade deals receive the scrutiny they deserve - and therefore to protect food and environmental standards - four things would need to happen:
Before negotiations, Parliament would be given a debate and vote on the government’s negotiating objectives for all new trade deals. This would require the government to lay out its plans for new trade agreements and mean that MPs can air the concerns of their constituents, and set trade talks off in a democratic direction.
During negotiations, Parliament would be able to see texts, and have the right to regular updates.
After negotiations, MPs would have a guaranteed debate and vote on every trade deal, and votes should be meaningful and binding.
Throughout the process, the government would consult with civil society - especially farmers, environmental NGOs, trade unions and consumer groups - to ensure that trade deals work for people and planet.
On this, the UK could learn from some of its largest trading partners. The EU involves its Parliament at the start of negotiations and provides regular updates, with a guaranteed vote at the end. The US has an extensive public consultation process and Congress gets a guaranteed vote on the final deal. This table compares the UK system to others - as you can see, the UK lags quite far behind. Both the US and the EU are successful, prosperous trading blocs: clearly, having a democratic system of scrutiny does not stop trade from happening.
The upcoming Trade Bill provides an opportunity for MPs to put in place meaningful scrutiny processes. The Bill has its Report Stage in the House of Lords next month, though the government has already opposed cross-party amendments on scrutiny and transparency. As the UK embarks on a new chapter of its long trading history, there is a unique opportunity to ensure that our trade is democratic, transparent, and good for people and planet.
David Lawrence is Senior Political Adviser at the Trade Justice Movement, which represents 60 NGOs and trade unions to campaign for a trading system which works for people and planet. He tweets at @dc_lawrence