My Lords, I note that a number of noble Lords say that they are “rising” to speak to amendments in this Committee. Under the rules that have been set for us, when we are in the Chamber physically we still rise to speak; when we are in Grand Committee, the new rules say we must not rise to speak. We are positively prohibited from doing so. The authorities
have not yet taken it on themselves to pronounce whether those speaking from a location other than the Palace of Westminster must rise or not, but I observe that those I have seen beamed in have not been rising while they say they are. I make a plea to return to normal language in how we describe what we are doing in this Committee.
Turning to the amendments, I was going to make the point, made so ably by my noble friend Lord Lansley, that these are continuity agreements and so the amendments that start off by trying to constrain regulations made under Clause 2(1) confine themselves to continuity agreements and no more. There are a lot of words that will have no real impact at all. In terms of continuity agreements, we should judge whether something is needed in the Bill by reference to what the Government have done in the continuity agreements that have already been agreed and been through the parliamentary process.
I do not think any noble Lords have raised any concerns whatever under the various headings included in these amendments in relation to those continuity agreements. I see no need to amend this Bill regarding continuity agreements for the matters that seem to be exercising noble Lords. Those associated with these amendments may well wish to reconstitute them to seek to deal with non-continuity agreements—that is, free trade agreements on an ongoing basis. I will therefore offer one or two comments on the amendments themselves.
Amendment 11 seems remarkably vague or difficult to interpret. There are a number of references to specific matters in international law and conventions, but there are also some quite loose words about children’s and women’s rights which are not confined to particular conventions or obligations. I suggest that they are too vague to be left in any amendment. I also note in Amendment 11 that we have introduced
“the primacy of human rights law”.
I do not think that there is primacy for any particular law or that we have a hierarchy of laws, whether established in this country or internationally. The wording of Amendment 11 is problematic.
6.45 pm
On Amendment 33, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, spoke brilliantly about Amendment 33 and I could not add to anything that she has said. Amendment 45 does not fall foul of the continuity agreement problem, because it is drafted more broadly. I suggest to noble Lords that this is a very onerous amendment to seek to put on the face of the Bill because it requires human rights and equalities impact assessments after two years and then at intervals of not more than two years. Is this every two years in perpetuity for every agreement that is done? We are going to clog up the work of Parliament by receiving impact assessments that will probably get little attention.
I also suggest that the drafting of this leaves some things to be desired because it talks about the assessment of different sectors but makes no attempt to say how many or whether we are talking about broad or quite minute ones. It also does not say whether the report is about equalities and human rights in the United Kingdom,
the other country with which we are conducting an agreement, or the whole lot. If it is the latter, I suggest that that is over the top. Therefore, I see problems with all of these amendments, whether they are in their current form—restricted to continuity agreements—or more widely.