CPTPP: Conclusion of Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s record on trade is quite dreadful. UK exports are projected to fall by 6.6% this year, which is over £51 billion lost to the UK economy according to the OBR. The failure to deliver the India trade deal or the US trade deal promised by the end of last year is a significant issue, so it is important to scrutinise what exactly Ministers have agreed to in these talks. The Government have a history of lauding trade deals one minute and then criticising them the next.

As we all know, CPTPP is made up of 11 countries—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam—but we also know that other countries, including China, have applied to join or expressed an interest in doing so. We are all aware of the developing situation in relation to Taiwan. It is inconceivable that there would not be economic consequences should tensions continue to escalate in the way some fear they might. Can the Minister let the House know, as far as he is able today, whether our involvement with CPTPP might affect the UK’s response? What is the UK’s position on the application of China to be part of CPTPP?

The UK will be the first new member since the bloc was established in 2018, and the first European member. The Government say that CPTPP membership brings a range of benefits, including lowering trade barriers to a dynamic region. Accession also forms part of the Government’s Indo-Pacific tilt set out in the integrated review. However, the UK already has bilateral agreements with nine of the 11 CPTPP members.

Over the year to September 2022, the UK exported £60.6 billion of goods and services to the CPTPP countries, which is 7.8% of the UK total, and imported £50.2 billion, or 5.9%, so the economic benefits appear at this stage to be relatively small. In fact, the Government’s own assessment tells us that the long-run increase in GDP will be 0.08%. Can the Minister confirm that the figure of 0.08% is correct?

As part of the Spring Budget, the OBR forecast that, in 2023, UK exports are set to fall by 6.6%. That is a hit of over £51 billion to the UK economy. Can the Minister explain why this has happened? The Prime Minister wants us all to be better at maths, so can the Minister lead by example and tell us what proportion of that loss he thinks this deal is going to replace?

Other countries joining CPTPP have negotiated safeguards and put in place support for their domestic producers. For example, New Zealand and Australia have put side letters in place to opt out of the dispute mechanism. Is the UK going to do this and if not, why not?

There needs to be as close to a level playing field as possible, especially on issues such as workers’ rights but also environmental protections, safety and animal welfare. How can Ministers assure us that the highest possible standards are agreed and implemented, so that UK workers are operating on a fair playing field and workers internationally do not become exploited? On the environment, have conditions been put in place to address concerns around the import of palm oil, which has been linked to deforestation?

What consultation has been undertaken with the devolved Governments to assess their views on negotiating outcomes and how will they be involved in the ratification process? Importantly, what detailed assurances can the Government provide that the CPTPP will not undermine the Windsor Framework, given the closeness of standards regimes and the green lane system?

What safeguards have been secured for UK farmers and what support will the Government offer to our agricultural sector on exports to CPTPP countries, particularly given the strong feeling there is that Ministers sold out our farmers to get the Australia deal over the line? The RSPCA has made it clear that the CPTPP has no explicit language on animal welfare, so what safeguards have the Government put in place to ensure that animal welfare is maintained for products imported to the UK?

Can the Minister also update the House on the progress of negotiations with India and the United States? Is it correct that negotiations with those countries will not even start until 2025?

The reason I have asked a lot of questions—I accept that—is that the problem here is detail. It is very important but very thin on the ground at the moment, and I am afraid that the Government do not have the best track record in supporting UK producers on those issues. There absolutely is an opportunity here, but there is risk too. We do not want to find ourselves again in a position where the Government make an agreement without fully understanding the consequences.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for being approachable and proactive in communicating. I also thank his office for its openness and willingness to engage. I am sure that will continue, so if he could indicate what the timeframe will be with regard to the legal text being ready, and when we expect the treaty ratification process to commence, that would be enormously helpful.

These Benches believe passionately in free, fair, open and sustainable trade, so we welcome any reductions in tariffs for our exporters and moves towards reducing non-tariff barriers in new markets. As the International Agreements Committee and others have remarked, this will be the first agreement the UK enters into in which we will knowingly increase net emissions. What is the update from the Government with regard to the climate component of this accession? The Government do not provide much clear information with regard to emissions.

As the noble Baroness said, the UK already has trade agreements in place with most CPTPP members. This agreement absorbs the new ones that the UK has signed with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Are there carve- outs in this agreement that we will be able to understand clearly when we receive the text?

With regard to the omissions in the Australia and New Zealand agreements on protecting geographical indicated foods, for those agreements, UK GI foods—some of the most cherished brands and produce in this country—will be protected only if Australia and New Zealand sign an EU trade agreement so we can protect them through the TCA. What is the protection for UK geographical indicated produce?

The Trade Secretary was getting into a bit of a tangle over the issue of modelling and the figures on Monday, so it is worth reminding the House that the Government’s scoping paper stated that the net benefit to the UK over 15 years of accession would be a mere £120 million per year to the UK economy. The trade writer for the FT said that, in decibel terms, this was

“a cat sneezing three rooms away”.

The Trade Secretary then asked us not to use the Government’s own paper regarding the 0.08% potential benefit. So I suspect we will have to await a full impact assessment. When can we expect to see that?

The Trade Secretary said that the CPTPP accession was “the future of … trade”. She correctly highlighted that this was the “fastest-growing” trade area but did not say that it was because of those countries’ trade with China. She also did not say that the pace of EU trade with those countries is now forecast to outpace what the Government’s modelling has said that the UK will benefit from in accession. The Trade Secretary said that this was the future of trade and that the people had voted for this, not the past—in some way indicating that there was a choice to be made; we trade either with Asia or with Europe. That is obviously nonsense.

The Government’s approach paper was pretty clear. It said that if we had maintained EU membership and the existing trajectory, UK trade with CPTPP members was already set to increase by 65% by 2030, or £37 billion. This accession is only adding 0.08%. I would be grateful if the Minister could say why it is opening up so little in additional markets.

The accession was also spun as a tilt away from China. However, we know that most of the countries within that agreement are also part of an agreement with China in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which represents 30% of global GDP. Negotiations are in the final stages between China, Japan and South Korea for an FTA. What is the Government’s position on whether they believe that China should accede to CPTPP?

Finally, there is an omission from all the Government’s data. In the scoping paper and the Statement, there is no mention of trade diversion. There has been no consultation with developing countries on what the likely impact of market access will be. There is one line on page 52 of the Government’s scoping paper that says:

“While the impact of the UK’s accession to CPTPP on GDP in developing countries is likely to be negligible, developing countries with a high share of trade with the UK and CPTPP member countries are most likely to be impacted”.


We already know that some exporters from Africa are complaining that they were not consulted and that their produce is going to be harmed by this accession, so perhaps the Government could provide information on trade diversion.

As with the India agreement, I have a considerable fear that some, if not most, of the benefits that we are likely to see will be trade diversion from developing countries with which we are seeking to encourage trade. I hope that the Minister can provide detailed information with regard to those questions.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I will allow a couple of seconds for people who have obviously got it off their chest during the first group to leave, in the hope that we do not go through the whole thing again.

Clause 19 is very short, at only a couple of paragraphs, but it is quite interesting, as it pleasingly addresses the situation we may find ourselves in where the Government have been successful in reaching an agreement with the European Union. Many of us have said, time and again, throughout this Committee, that we hope to see that. We have been challenging Ministers, as we have seen in the previous group, to show visible political leadership. The visibility has been lacking. I take on board what the Minister said about his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary playing an active role, but visibility and political momentum have been lacking. I like to think that, had one of my right honourable friends been leading these events, we would have seen a far more outward-facing presence, if I can put it that way, through this process—but never mind.

Clause 19 looks at the eventuality of there being an agreement. The amendment I have tabled is one that will be familiar by now to noble Lords who have been taking part in this process from the first day of our considerations. The first line of the clause, as it stands, says that:

“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.


I have asked that “appropriate” be changed to “necessary”, and I will explain why, in this particular instance, that is sensible.

This clause gives Ministers the power to implement an agreement that they hope to reach with the EU. Obviously—and we accept this—Ministers will need some flexibility in that event, and things may need to be done as a consequence of having an agreement. But I would have thought that an agreement, by its nature, would be clear and specific, and that things would be agreed that are not currently in place that would need to happen. In that instance, surely the things that need to be done by Ministers will, by virtue of the fact that they have just been agreed to with our negotiating partners, meet the test and be necessary.

It troubles me that the Government feel they should have “appropriate” there instead. That seems to give them much greater scope than is ever going to be needed in the event that this clause is used—and we hope that it will be. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s thinking is there, beyond thinking that “necessary” is too tight and just wanting to allow themselves a bit more room—of course they do; who would not? But this clause deals with the fact that there may be an agreement, and I do not think it is justified for the power to be as widely drawn as it is.

While I am on my feet, I note that I support the stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this case as well. The DPRRC believes that the powers in this clause are just too widely drawn, though there is obviously merit in discussing what powers are needed in the event of an agreement and what the role of Parliament should be in that situation. We think that a deal can be struck—we have said that many times—and also believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any agreement, as other Parliaments will. I just note that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 was passed in a day and the TCA was ratified without direct parliamentary process. We accept that Ministers need the ability to act in the event of an agreement and we appreciate the Government demonstrating their anticipation of such an agreement in this clause, which is notable, but surely a Bill to enact an agreement would be better. That is what we have been asking for.

This is a discussion we have had with the Government on many occasions and on other agreements, when we have talked about the unsatisfactory process we still have in this country for parliamentary involvement in agreements. We do not think we have got it right yet; that is understandable, and it is perhaps going to take some time to get to that point. We have not had to engage in this for many years, but I do not think that many people in Parliament are satisfied with the way this works at the moment, and it would be helpful if the Minister could acknowledge that.

Without being too cheeky about it, we want to help the Government, given just how unsuccessful they have been so far in settling these issues. We do not see why they would be so resistant to involvement from people who are being very positive and cheering them on in their endeavours. We really do want to see a resolution to this. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name and express my support for the stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

We support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. In supporting it, I want to make two points. First, this clause effectively turns the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act principles on their head. We have well-established mechanisms, which are set down in statute, on how we approve new international agreements. If this is a mechanism to replace the Northern Ireland protocol, an internationally made agreement, with a new agreement, then why is the CRaG process, which allows parliamentary scrutiny, debate and, unlike this, an ability to have enhanced approvals or indeed vetoing by Parliament, not going to be the route for it? I do not understand why.

Secondly, it also sets on its head every commitment that has been provided for every trade agreement: namely, that if a trade agreement requires any primary legislation to bring it into effect in domestic law, primary legislation is brought forward—this is not done by regulation. But, again, this is being set on its head. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is coming up, which is primary legislation—not regulation —implemented with agreement. The two Bills contradict each other really quite glaringly.

I think that this is significant because of an interaction I had with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on one of the previous days in Committee. I asked him whether he had given consideration—if there is, as a result of these talks, an agreement with the EU—as to how that should be put in force. The Government are saying “by regulations”, which are unamendable and could even be under a negative process; they could use Clause 19 to do this. If the noble Lord’s concern—as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—was about the need for consent, this is not the means by which that would be secured. Yet this is the means by which the Government could enforce it. There is a very jarring comparison between what consent of any new agreement would be and how the Government are seeking powers under Clause 19 to enable them to put this into force. Clause 19 should not be the mechanism by which we have sustainable support for any agreement. An order-making power for a Minister is simply not the route—and that is in addition to the fact that they are turning on their heads long-standing practices by which we put international agreements into domestic legislation. For this reason, I do not think that Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Clauses 5 and 6 standing part. There is consistency in some of the arguments to some extent, so this will not necessarily need to be as long.

As the DPRRC indicated, the Government have not yet formed their policy on the precise elements that they are seeking powers for. The DPRRC indicated and highlighted—I agree with it—that we should not legislate when government has not yet formulated its policy. Let us be clear that the Government’s memorandum states that the powers that they seek under these clauses could make criminal offences by negative instrument. Can the Minister confirm that in his response? We should not make new criminal offences by negative instrument.

The Government also state that they need these powers but should not present them through primary legislation. This includes certain areas of new powers for HMRC and other agencies. In primary legislation—in the Trade Act and elsewhere—proper procedures for dating sharing on customs arrangements within the UK have been brought forward. The Government felt that primary legislation was necessary for that, but, under this Bill, they say that they do not believe that primary legislation is the correct approach for it. This is simply not consistent.

I am interested to know what the Government consider to be the interactions with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The regulation-making powers under this legislation, providing more powers for HMRC legislative competence, were not provided for Northern Ireland under that Act. I am not sure what has changed. The interactions between Sections 30A, 30B and 30C of that Act are not clear.

Secondly, we can perhaps explore what the Government seek to do on the use of delegated powers to make new law in an area where we have made an international agreement—as we heard, they have not provided illustration for it. The Government’s response to the European Union’s proposals in October 2021 has not been entirely clear either. I am not sure whether they supported its proposals for having just one certificate per consignment of food products, rather than per product—presumably, that would have a major impact on the HMRC statistics and declarations that the Minister referred to. The European Union indicated that that would remove 80% of checks on products of animal origin, or new procedures for prepared meats, such as sausages, import of which into the EU is generally prohibited. So I am not sure what impact assessment was carried out for the EU proposals, had they been fully adopted.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the Ministers took credit for the Trader Support Service, but they now seem to suggest that it has failed. Why? What has been the impact of the Trader Support Service? As I understand, it raises all the documentation and it states that it has been successful. It is on a lucrative contract from Fujitsu Services Ltd, which is at the centre of the Post Office scandal, so what is the Minister’s view about how Fujitsu has carried out its contract? Fundamentally, legislating first before introducing proposals should not be done, and trying to say that legislating for areas where agreement can be made will not be sustainable elsewhere.

I close by thinking that there must be a prize somewhere for government irony. As we know, the delegated powers memorandum on Clause 6 states that it is a breach of an “international obligation”. Paragraph 56 says that

“regulatory procedures … can be updated to ensure compliance with, or give effect to, any international obligation or arrangement to which the United Kingdom is a party.”

That is quite welcome. However, it is a shame that these powers are removing those obligations and are providing such unprecedented breadth to the regulation-making powers for Ministers. The case has not been made; therefore I beg to move.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will speak briefly to Amendments 10 and 11, which we have tabled because, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we too wanted to highlight concerns about these issues. As I am sure noble Lords can see, in the current Bill, delegated powers are to be used when Ministers consider it “appropriate”; we would change this to “necessary”. Prior to tabling these amendments, we have signalled our general concerns about delegated powers fairly consistently throughout the process of leaving the EU, since the EU withdrawal Bill in 2018. It is disappointing Ministers’ fondness for this technique seems to have grown; we now see it frequently in things that are quite wide-ranging. I was recently involved with the Schools Bill, which was riddled with these powers because, frankly, the Government did not know what they wanted to do on a wide policy area, so inserted a bunch of Henry VIII powers to give themselves the flexibility to backfill their argument later and decide what they wanted to do once the Bill had passed. Obviously, there was a huge row about that and the Schools Bill is no more, so we can only hope that lessons were learned.

We have been raising concerns again and again about how the Government are just relying on delegated powers, but for some reason the scope of the powers in EU-related Bills seems incredibly wide and we are starting to tease out, with the Minister, some of their intentions. However, an intention stated at the Dispatch Box—or something indicated in other government documents—is not sufficient when we are talking about these sorts of issues. What we really want is clarity and the ability to scrutinise and have those discussions on the Floor of this House, but the way the Government are going about this denies us this opportunity. One of our main concerns is the Government deciding to use skeleton Bills in the way they are.

These are quite general concerns. As we have heard, there are much bigger concerns about the Bill and we have covered some in our debates today and last week. We fully understand the concerns raised about Clauses 5 and 6, which enable the creation of new customs arrangements without primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did a very effective job of going into those in some detail, which I do not feel I need to repeat. This is quite a precedent to set and we feel deeply uncomfortable about delegating these kinds of powers to the Treasury and its agencies. In the past—I mentioned the Schools Bill, but there have been other examples—the Government have backed off, removed some of these powers from legislation and changed tack by putting in place genuine checks on their use. In all honesty, I do not think that particularly helps us with this Bill because, as many have said, a whole face of make-up could be applied to this Bill but it really would not help.

That said, it is important that we, as a House, put down a marker and make our view known to the Government on this issue of delegated powers, because this is quite an extreme example in the Bill. Perhaps when some more stability is available to Ministers, this might be something we start to see less of, because the government agenda would become clearer. I must say—noble Lords can hold me to this—that should my party win power in the coming months or years, I hope that this is not an approach that we would seek to take. I am very well aware that this is on the record and will be quoted back to me. Such is our concern about the overuse of these powers that I am very happy to be held to my words.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will match his “Get rid of Clause 11” with “Get rid of them all”, because that is our position.

The Advocate-General said at Second Reading:

“the peril … was not inherent in the protocol’s provision.” —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 764.]

But he then said today that the “problem lies in the protocol”, which the Government themselves negotiated. So, we are back to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals, and it seems that the Government are going to rest on an assertion of necessity, with an assumption that it is not going to be tested. It surely is not welcome for us, in passing legislation, that the Government are effectively asking people to challenge it in the international courts—I can only imagine that it would be the ICJ.

The ICJ has stated in clear terms that invoking necessity on wrongfulness and not adhering to a treaty commitment cannot be a permanent solution. So I ask the Advocate-General, if he responds to any of the points that I am going to make, whether the Government agree with that. The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that, even if invoking necessity was upheld, it is only temporary in order to remove the grave and imminent peril; it is not permanent, because it still means that that party is in breach of the treaty.

So if long-term, permanent changes are required to be made, that will require protocol changes and treaty changes, and the Government have not said that. They cannot invoke necessity if they believe that this is a permanent solution. The reason why I say that with confidence is—the Advocate-General, in schooling the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and me as non-lawyers, said we were “less wrong” on this—that, customarily in international law, we have to look at the record of the ICJ. I asked the Library of the House to provide me with information on when the ICJ has upheld parties who have invoked necessity. It has never been upheld, for the very good reason that it has to be limited, and “grave and immanent peril” on a cumulative basis is considered an exceptionally high bar. The Advocate-General must know that.

Of the two cases that the Advocate-General cited, the one involving Hungary and Slovakia—which was referred to by my noble friend—I found fascinating, as I mentioned before, when I read the judgment. The Advocate-General said that necessity

“was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 765]

As I referred to before, the Government seem to be relying on one case regarding communist Hungary in 1989 which the ICJ threw out.

The second case mentioned, involving Canada and fisheries, could refer to two cases. In one, the ICJ was asked by Spain to adjudicate because Canada had seized a vessel, invoking necessity, but the ICJ said that it could not look into it because Canada had passed legislation at that time to have a reservation from the ICJ, so the case could not even be heard. The other case relating to the Grand Banks should worry the Minister, as it was about imposing licence fees. Canada invoked necessity; the US responded saying that it would pay the fees of the fishermen and then claim reimbursement from Canada; then Canada amended its laws, which brought in all other aspects, and it was resolved by Canada removing the licence fees. Now, if that is a precedent, it is a worrying one, because I can see that there will be consequences with the EU as a result of this legislation. There will be reciprocal action and the UK will pay for it.

So can the Minister confirm what the Library told me, that there has never been a successful invocation of necessity? Can he tell me if there has ever been a case where any party has invoked necessity for framework legislation? I could not find it, so presumably the Minister will be able to help me.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly; I do not see any point in repeating what other people have said. I added my name to the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to remove these clauses, and it has been observed by some that this is a wrecking move. I guess it is, in a way, if you do not agree with a Bill and feel unable to amend it in a way that would make it satisfactory, you attempt to remove clauses which then unravel it. We are not happy with this piece of legislation and we are seeking ways—some of them creative, others more blunt, as this one is—because we think the Government are taking the wrong approach.

The points about necessity have been made at length. I think the Minister needs to be as thorough as he can—although perhaps not as lengthy as he can, just very clear. I think we want clarity about exactly where the Government think they are on this. My suspicion is that the Government are backfilling their answers as they go along and that they did not really think about this, because this piece of legislation was not really thought about. Introducing it in the first place was a political act to give the impression that the Government were playing hardball in negotiations. It has kind of served its purpose, as some people have explained, over the months. Ministers are now having to justify where they have got themselves, and we are all intrigued about where it is going to go next.

I do not know how the Minister is going to respond to the concerns raised by the DUP, which are incredibly serious and ought to be considered with the utmost thoughtfulness. Especially in the absence of any draft regulations, I do not know how those concerns are going to be dealt with. It is all very unclear. This is not the way we should proceed with any issues, and especially not when it comes to Northern Ireland.

We have been around the houses on the issue of Article 16 rather a lot. It is just ridiculous to claim that Article 16 lacks the flexibility to be able to deal with the concerns that have been raised—obviously it does. The Minister’s explanation for why that is no longer the Government’s preferred route does not really add up. Again, I think that in their desire to have some legislation, they are having to make up reasons going backwards, and that is why they are now coming unstuck on the Floor of the House.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and her concerns about the haulage industry. It is absolutely right that those concerns should be raised. I would be very happy to go to Ballymena and to meet Mr Jackson to listen to what he has to say, because I am sure that what he said in his letter to us is true. Of course we ought to be looking at ways to make sure that those issues are fixed, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is not about the EU always being right; I think the EU was wrong to link these issues with Horizon. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We should have made progress on both issues, but separately. So, we do not always take the EU’s side. That is just not true.

The principal concern we have is that unless we get at the very least the things we have asked for in our earlier amendments—specifically these draft regulations; that is really important—we are going to be looking at ways to make sure that the Bill does not proceed as smoothly as the Minister would like. This is not a tweaking issue; we just do not think the Government are going about this in the right way.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Not any more.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I hear he has changed. The former Paymaster-General, who is now the former Attorney-General, was citing the former Attorney-General Suella Braverman, who is now the Home Secretary—even I am struggling to keep up with what is going on. Nevertheless, the principle is clear that, if the then Attorney-General was happy to provide advice to the Times in her abortive leadership campaign, we humbly seek that Parliament be equally enlightened with an update on exactly what the Government’s position is.