International Relations and Defence Committee Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

International Relations and Defence Committee

Lord Lexden Excerpts
Wednesday 2nd February 2022

(2 years, 3 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Portrait The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He obviously had a very considerable input into these matters. Just to confirm, it will be for the International Relations and Defence Committee to decide when there is a need, in line with Section 3 of the Trade Act, to appoint a sub-committee into whether there exist credible reports of genocide in the territory of a counterparty to a prospective free trade agreement with the United Kingdom. These are absolutely the parameters in which this matter relates to the Trade Act 2021.

On the second matter—it is clearly an interesting point in terms of the two Houses—one question that has come across is why there was not a joint committee. My understanding is that the language of Section 3 of the Trade Act appears to preclude this, not least because different procedures apply in each House, as detailed in the Liaison Committee report which the House agreed on 1 December when it designated the IRDC as the responsible committee. Clearly, if and when there was this dialogue between the two Houses, it would be important for the two Houses and their respective committees to reflect on the fact that both Houses had a responsibility to consider these matters. But, with those two questions in mind—

Lord Lexden Portrait Lord Lexden (Con)
- Hansard - -

Is there anything in the legislation to preclude a joint sitting of the two committees to resolve any differences that may arise between them?

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Portrait The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend raises an interesting question. I have to say that the actual construct of the Trade Act is not within my scope of knowledge. Clearly, there may well be occasions when those sorts of pragmatic considerations would, I imagine, be reflected on by pragmatic people in both Houses. I am just saying that my understanding is that the language of the Trade Act appears to preclude a Joint Committee—but the noble Lord raises a pertinent point. Unless there are any further questions, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.