The Trade Bill shows how undemocratic the UK’s constitution really is

Matthew Hull, Unlock Democracy

Monday 20th July saw the latest debate of the government’s Trade Bill in the House of Commons, with parliament rejecting a bevy of amendments from opposition MPs.

The rejection of three of the most high-profile amendments has far-reaching consequences for the health of our democracy. But what were these amendments, what did they mean, and what did rejecting them tell us about the UK’s undemocratic political system?

Trade: who decides?

The first major amendment - named ‘parliamentary approval of trade agreements’ - would have added a host of conditions new free trade agreements would have to satisfy before they could be signed by the UK government.

Parliament would have had to agree to draft negotiating objectives before trade negotiations could begin in earnest, where devolved governments would be consulted; a sustainability impact assessment on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare would have been published; parliament would have been required to approve any new trade agreement before it could come into effect.

By rejecting this amendment, parliament seems almost paradoxically to have reduced its own power to hold the government accountable. But for a governing party that appears to see parliament more as an enabler of government behaviour, rather than a body to which it is fundamentally accountable, this decision is part of a wider pattern of decision making.

The rejection of this amendment shows just how undemocratic the UK’s existing constitutional arrangements and our politicians' attitudes really are, with wide-ranging consequences for many areas of our lives.

Where do devolved governments come in?

The second major amendment - entitled ‘implementation of international trade agreements’ - would have required that the UK government get consent for any trade regulations affecting the remit of devolved governments (in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) from the devolved governments themselves. The amendment fell by a significant margin.

Trade agreements, while often negotiated in secrecy and badly reported, have massive ramifications for all our lives including on the environment, health, standards, and workers’ rights.

By effectively reserving the right to override devolved governments in the UK’s nations on many issues within their remit, the UK government is significantly undermining the devolution settlement we already have. This reduces the power of people in those nations to have a say over things that affect them in particular, and further reduces any checks and balances on the power of Westminster over our lives.

Trade and our NHS

The third major amendment - named ‘international trade agreements: health or care services’ - would have added several restrictions to free trade agreements that affect the UK’s healthcare system.

It provided that no agreement would restrict the delivery of a publicly funded health service free at the point of use; it would have protected the employment rights and conditions of health and care workers, as well as ensuring that trade agreements would not affect public bodies’ ability to regulate care quality, drug pricing, and patients’ data.

Despite campaigns coordinated by We Own It, Global Justice Now, and other groups, and despite massive public support for protecting the NHS in trade deals, only 11 Conservative MPs rebelled against the government whip to vote for the amendment. By voting against it, the Tory government reneged directly on its general election pledge that the NHS would “not be on the table” during trade negotiations. Clearly, restricting the NHS’ ability to run a public service on its own terms is seen as a valuable bargaining chip by a government desperate for free trade agreements at all costs.

Watch our talk and Q&A with Nick Dearden, Director of Global Justice Now, and Ellen Lees, Campaigns Officer at We Own It. The talk was part of our Democracy Gathering event series. You can watch all the events on our YouTube channel.

What does this tell us?

Government MPs lining up to reject ideas from the opposition was unsurprising. But it should still raise the alarm about trade and the UK’s political system. By embracing the immense power of the centralised, unaccountable government in Whitehall, it confirmed that the ‘Wild West’ of global trade is still largely a ‘democracy-free zone’. In that terrifying space, no social good or public service appears to be “off the table”.

It reveals a government determined to keep details of its negotiations secret and well away from the public domain. Without parliamentary accountability, people with the money and power to get close to government ministers will continue to have louder voices than the rest of us. With devolved governments increasingly shut out of trade decisions, even greater questions will be asked whether Westminster really cares for the opinions of those in the UK’s nations and regions.

The Trade Bill is an alarm bell. It will pass without trouble, but its full consequences remain to be seen.