Brexit: Workers’ Rights — House of Lords, 2019-10-29
Topic: Foreign Trade
Robert Stevenson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating that Answer from the other place. It might be helpful and for the convenience of the House if I make it clear that the references to the leaks that gave rise to this exchange are significant, having been reported at the weekend by the Financial Times, which has a good record of picking up government intelligence—very often intelligence that the Government would not wish to see in print Three important points are made in these reports. First, the UK is apparently open to some divergence on workers’ rights after Brexit. The FT has stated that the paper that it was relying on was drafted by DExEU with input by Downing Street, and that the UK’s interpretation of the level playing field commitments would be very different after Brexit. It also said that the Government believed that binding arbitration would be "inappropriate"—and binding arbitration was the way suggested in the withdrawal agreement for how the two blocs will work together as we go forward This is quite a serious charge. I know that the Government do not normally comment on leaked documents, but it is important to recognise that they responded to this leak, saying that they had no intention of lowering standards, which was repeated in the Statement that we have just heard. They went on to explain: "UK Level Playing Field commitments will be negotiated in the context of the future UK-EU Free Trade Agreement, where we will achieve a balance of rights and obligations which reflect the scope and depth of the future relationship" I put it to the Minister that that is a rather open-ended statement. It does not subscribe to the sense that he was giving in the Statement. How does that guarantee rights if they are to be negotiated, going forward, in the light of the scope and depth of the future relationship? To take a very simple and classic example, we have already set out what our tariff regime would be after Brexit, should there be one. That regime is effectively the same as that of the EU; it differs only very slightly. So what else is there to negotiate in a free trade agreement Secondly, looking more closely at the Statement that we have just heard, it is also very unclear where exactly the guarantee that we are expecting is to be found. The Minister has already said: "The Government have absolutely no intention of lowering standards on workers’ rights"— but the leaked version absolutely says that no guarantee is available at this stage. It goes on to say that, "under the terms of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 all existing workers’ rights laws will be transferred into domestic law once we have left the EU, making sure there is no gap or lack of clarity in the minimum set of workers’ rights" It also says that, "every Bill brought before this place in future that affects workers’ rights will include a statement by the Government of the day on how it impacts on workers’ rights" A statement on impact is not a guarantee. Can the Minister convince us otherwise Thirdly, the Minister said: "The Government have also published clauses that will require every Government, now and in the future, to monitor new EU legislation covering employment and workplace health and safety standards and to report on those changes to Parliament, so that Parliament can again have its say" Where is the guarantee in that? "Having a say" will certainly not provide us with the guarantees we are talking about This Government are not committing to the future maintenance of standards. I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to the very comprehensive amendment on the non-regression of standards that was passed by the House during the recent passage of the Trade Bill —a Bill which has now disappeared. It was proposed by the Government and accepted unanimously by the House. When will we see that re-enacted?