I am grateful to my noble friend for his response to the debate. I want to make one point. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, may not have understood my point about the unilateral scheme of preferences in developing countries. It was simply that, since Amendment 54 bites only on those international trade agreements that are subject to the CRaG process, it would not bite on the unilateral scheme of preferences at all. So, it does not do what the mover of the amendment is looking for it to do; when they look again on Report, noble Lords should—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, suggested —take it away and think about how they can support the Government to maintain and deliver our standards, rather than seek to go around them.
Trade Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lansley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 October 2020.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Trade Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
806 c997 
Session
2019-21
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-28 17:47:23 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-10-13/20101350000041
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-10-13/20101350000041
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-10-13/20101350000041