Ministers have expounded the mutual benefits of a new, UK-led era of global trading, outside the EU’s rules. Earlier this year, Liam Fox wrote that expanded trade relations will help bring “economic liberation” and prosperity to the poorest nations. Ministers are right about the expansion of UK trade and potentially huge benefits to some of the poorest countries.

In some of the poorest countries in the world, including some Commonwealth countries, there is strong evidence that badly-designed trade deals can hinder development and harm women’s rights in particular. They can encourage a race to the bottom between poorer countries on workers’ rights and low pay; limit what governments can do to uphold rights, and to fund public services; and, through rapid changes in the jobs market, they can increase poverty.

Workers typically women and girls are often forced to work long hours, and frequently harassed or worse at work. Low value industries like clothes manufacturing tend to grow when a country opens up to trade, and while many jobs might be created, they are often deeply insecure and unsafe.

In Egypt, an investment treaty has allowed a French corporation to sue the government over its plans to bring in the minimum wage. In Vietnam, rapid liberalisation risks sinking a thriving food processing industry as the domestic market will be inundated with cheap imports, and many domestic firms that employ female seafood farmers are unlikely to survive.

The Brexit transition period, is a golden opportunity for world-leaders to take a principled approach to trade. Starting at the upcoming Commonwealth leaders’ summit in London, ministers should commit to the fairest possible post-Brexit trade offer. The UK’s proposed trade deals should be grounded in the strongest international rights standards and based on solid assessments of the likely impact on the poorest.