Pub and Hospitality Sector

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

In the usual way, let me take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this debate and celebrating the contribution of pubs to life in his constituency. He rightly talked about the contribution that pubs make to social mobility and the journey all the way up to manager that those who start out as pot washers can potentially make. I noted in particular his praise for the Curzon Arms and I can assure him we will consider that as the campaign stop for when we visit his constituency at the next election to try to increase our majority in this House. He, and I hope the whole House, will understand if I briefly praise pubs in my own constituency—the great Horseshoe, where I have been privileged to watch one or two great victories by the Welsh rugby union team, and the Trinity pub where we have celebrated one or two election successes in recent times.

I will not be able to do justice in the time available to me to the richness of the contributions that we have had, for which I apologise to hon. Members across the House. Notwithstanding, let me try to make one or two points and to pick up some of the specific questions that people have outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) celebrated her constituency’s many pubs and venues, some of which I have had the privilege to visit during what seems like Labour’s annual trip to her great city. Perhaps she might like to buy me a round when I next have to visit one of those pubs—[Hon. Members: “Freebies!”] [Laughter.] Perhaps not, then.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) referenced the Labour in Vain pub in her constituency. I am happy to sit down with her and talk about what else might be possible for that pub. She is right to celebrate community-owned pubs; I suspect that she, like me, comes from the Co-operative tradition in our ranks. The Co-operative party has championed the ambitions of many of our communities to own their own pub.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), in his inimitable way, championed the contribution of pubs to the life of his constituents. I hope I will have the opportunity at some point to come up and take advantage of the hospitality there. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) rightly praised the contribution of business improvement districts to supporting the environment around pubs. The business improvement district in my constituency does a particularly important job working with the police to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I know that work is replicated in business improvement districts across the country. He made an ambitious claim that the best kebab in the country is found in his constituency—I wonder whether others might have a slightly different perspective.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), who is unfortunately not in his place, rightly championed the soft skills learned by those who work in the pub trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) made an interesting speech—I was not sure quite where it was going to end with the reference to nationalisation, but I look forward to having the opportunity to find out a bit more about the unique history of the pubs in her constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) underlined the role of pubs in his constituency and the crucial contribution that Scotch whisky makes not only to the Scottish economy, but to the UK economy as a whole. He will know of the work my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security is seeking to do to reduce some of the tariffs that Scotch whisky still faces around the world. If I heard him right, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) promised to visit all 116 pubs in his constituency before the next election.

The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) referenced previous work she had done with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and I will reflect on her contribution and the Committee’s work outside this House, if I may. I hope to touch on the contributions of one or two other hon. Members as I make my way through some of the broader points, where appropriate.

This debate is important because our pubs and the wider hospitality sector are crucial to the UK economy, employing around 2.2 million people across 154,000 businesses and generating revenues of around £52 billion per annum.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is making some important points about the employment generated by the sector. Does he agree that in areas such as North Norfolk, with a huge hospitality industry, greater training opportunities are vital to allow people to have full and flourishing careers in the hospitality sector? Are the Government supportive of extending that franchise?

[Gareth Thomas]

I congratulate the hon. Member on getting his constituency’s pubs into the debate. I look forward to having the opportunity to visit one or two of those in his constituency again. I will come back to the significant point about training, on which I hope we will have some good news for the pubs in his constituency and more generally.

Pubs and hospitality venues are important to local economies. They help to create vibrant towns and cities that we all want to visit, to study, work, live and invest. Pubs help us to celebrate the very essence of life and friendship, to socialise with family and friends, to enjoy music and great sport, and to celebrate the important points in life’s journey. They are crucial to supporting wider social objectives: providing accessible jobs, as other Members have already touched on, helping to support community cohesion and providing welcoming spaces for those who feel isolated and alone to enjoy the company of others.

In short, hospitality is the backbone of our high streets and the lifeblood of so many of our communities. We all know that hospitality businesses are still struggling. At the weekend, the Yorkshire Post published a survey suggesting some 500 pubs had closed in Yorkshire since 2019, which is just one indication of the challenges facing the pub and hospitality industry.

[Jamie Stone]

I value the Minister’s words. Does he accept my earlier point that those businesses could do with getting the eastern European and foreign workers they used to have?

[Gareth Thomas]

I heard the point the hon. Gentleman made, and I want to come to the issue of access to talent to work in pubs and hospitality venues. While we always need to consider issues around visas and the right to work, we can do more to help people in our country to get access to jobs in the pubs and hospitality industry. The point I intend to make in relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) is pertinent to that.

As I said, we all know that hospitality businesses are struggling to recover from the pandemic, where closures and customer restrictions decimated cash reserves and drove up levels of debt. I say this gently with so many Conservative Members present, but the subsequent cost of living crisis, which was driven in part by the incompetence of previous Governments, has compounded the challenge for hospitality businesses and increased costs, and it has caused real difficulties and challenges for businesses in repaying some of those debts. One thinks in particular of the contribution Liz Truss made to those issues.

[Robbie Moore]

I am sure the Minister will get to it, but I am really keen to understand some of the specifics of what he is doing in his role as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade. What is the nature of his conversations with the Chancellor and the Treasury, specifically around business rates relief, VAT threshold, VAT duty, beer duty and the concerns raised by the likes of UKHospitality with the Employment Rights Bill? I am sure he is getting there, but this side of the House is keen to understand what he is doing in his role in the conversations with the Chancellor on the forthcoming Budget.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the prompt to get on to the issues around the Budget next week. He will understand, as one or two of his colleagues alluded to earlier, that I will not speculate on what will or will not be included in the Chancellor’s Budget. However, I can say that we recognise the very important role that hospitality businesses play in supporting local economies and communities, and we understand the pressures facing those businesses. When we were in Opposition, one of the biggest complaints we heard from high street businesses was the unfairness of the antiquated system of business rates. I apologise to him—I appreciate it is difficult to hear—but I think one of the reasons his party lost the confidence of the business community was because it had made multiple promises to abolish or reform the business rates system, but never actually got to that issue.

Business rates are particularly unfair for hospitality, leisure and tourism businesses which, as others have alluded to, create 5% of the UK’s GDP but pay 15% of all business rates. Not only is the current system of business rates unfair, but we know that it disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our highstreets, and in the context of this debate, on pubs and hospitality and venues. That is why we included in our manifesto a commitment to reform business rates, and it is why the Chancellor has continued to commit to setting out next steps on that at the next Budget.

[Esther McVey]

I would like to take away some comfort and be able to speak with my pub owners and pub landlords. Will the Minister commit today to speaking to the Chancellor about business rates before the Budget next week? I want him just to confirm that he will be making the representations from today’s debate to the Chancellor before the Budget.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am happy to confirm to the right hon. Lady and the whole House that I will ensure that the Treasury and the Chancellor are aware of the comments made in this debate. She will understand that crucial to the future of pubs and the hospitality industry is getting growth going in our country—in particular, getting more disposable income into the pockets of potential customers of pubs and other hospitality venues.

That is one reason the Prime Minister has made growth the number one mission of the Government. It is why we have already taken a series of steps to underline the significance of growth, from publishing a Green Paper on industrial strategy through to the success of the investment summit last week. It is also why we have introduced the package of measures to make work pay, including the Employment Rights Bill, which the House debated yesterday.

I want to pick up one or two specific points hon. Members made, in particular the reference by the hon. Member for North Norfolk to training. He may know that there has been much frustration across the business community, including from pubs and hospitality businesses, about how the apprenticeship levy works. We have committed to reforming that levy and to giving more focus to the skills needs of businesses.

That is one reason we have already established Skills England, which will have a new partnership with employers at its heart and will transform the existing apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy, to support business and boost opportunities for those living and working in the UK—something the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) will be pleased to hear.

Interventions from the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friends the Members for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) provide me with an opportunity to suggest gently that the Scottish Government might want to think again about their decision not to pass on the business rate relief to pubs that the Treasury in London sends them—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Could the Minister start winding up his remarks?

[Gareth Thomas]

Lastly, Ms Vaz, Ofgem has announced a series of measures to protect non-domestic energy customers from poor behaviour by energy suppliers, which I hope will address some of the concerns that we heard on that issue.

[Mike Wood]

On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I should have drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests before I spoke. I hope you will help me to get that on the record.

Business Confidence

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I too take the opportunity in the usual way to thank the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) for securing this important debate. At the outset, let me echo her thanks to businesses across the country for the wealth they create, the better communities they help promote and, crucially, the good jobs they offer. I do not know where her “Taste of East Grinstead” event is taking place, but if it is in the House, I will happily come along if I can. If not, I would be happy to hear from her separately about the particular businesses that turn up to that event.

As a number of interventions from hon. Members have made clear, small businesses, in particular, are the backbone of our economy. I feel particularly privileged to be the Minister for Small Businesses and to hear some of the remarkable stories about how those small businesses came into being and the successes they have had in each of our communities. That is why I am pleased that we have been making progress in government on following through on the commitments we made in opposition in our nine-point plan to back small businesses. If time allows, I hope to touch on some of those points.

I welcome the support of all hon. Members who have spoken for their business communities, even if I did not quite agree with the tone of all their remarks. All of us need the businesses in our communities to succeed, and it is great to hear so many Opposition and Government Members wanting to back them to succeed.

The Prime Minister could not have been any clearer about this Government’s guiding mission: we will go for growth at every opportunity. Growth and backing business is the surest path to prosperity and to improving the living standards of working people. We have made it clear that our goal is to deliver the highest sustained growth in the G7, more secure jobs, better wages and, as a result, much greater funding for our public services, including our brilliant NHS. It surely goes without saying that investment is key to driving that growth.

I gently say to Conservative Members that the problem is that the Administrations of the past 14 years sadly starved our economy of the investment it needed. Whether it is the fall-out from the poor-quality deal the Conservatives negotiated with the European Union after the Brexit referendum, the revolving door of Prime Ministers— I think every Conservative Member here backed Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget—the seven separate growth strategies since 2010 or the 11 different Business Secretaries in as many years, I say to Opposition Members that all of that might help to explain why they lost the confidence of business at the last general election.

If Opposition Members are not convinced by that, I would underline that there was also no plan to help small businesses grow, export or get into new markets. Support in that area was cut back and, in some cases, axed completely. There was no delivery on repeated promises to comprehensively reform business rates and no serious plan to tackle the scourge of late payments, which many small businesses face at the moment. Vital infrastructure projects that were fundamental to growth in many communities were cancelled, sensible measures to open up opportunities for investment in green energy projects were blocked, there was no obvious plan to back the high street—a point made by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) —and, in particular, there was no serious plan to tackle retail crime going forward.

The result is that British firms have not felt that investing domestically was an attractive enough proposition. There has been much reluctance to adopt new technology, to upskill employees or to plough money into research and development. Sadly, that is why the UK has sat right at the bottom of global rankings for business investment for quite some time—27th out of 30 in the OECD last year, behind Mexico, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the Minister for that point, which goes back to my contribution. This is about seeing what the Government can do in the next few weeks to give small businesses in my community in South Antrim the assurance they need to continue their online presence and sell into the UK.

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Member for his earlier remarks and his intervention. Let me be clear that my Department will continue to work with local partners in Northern Ireland, including InterTradeIreland, to develop and deliver our trade and industrial strategies. If the hon. Member wants to speak to me, I would be happy to help the small businesses that have written to him to join up with the support available in Northern Ireland.

Members across the House will be pleased that there is good news on growth. I welcome the generous support of the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield for the work done yesterday at the international investment summit and in the run-up to it. A raft of measures were announced to help boost business confidence going forward and to spur growth, and I will recap on some of them. We are determined to make it simpler for companies to relocate to the UK through a new corporate re-domiciliation regime, which I am sure will strengthen our position as a global business hub. We have announced a business-boosting lift to the thresholds on company sizes, which means we will have new legislation by the end of the year reducing the burdens on start-ups and SMEs, saving them nearly a quarter of a billion pounds. We will be consulting next year on our ambitious modernisation programme for the UK’s entire non-financial reporting regime. We are seeking to make shareholder communication easier, and we are clarifying the law on virtual annual general meetings.

Those improvements, helping to reduce red tape, could be worth up to £16 billion a year to investment going forward. As a result of the pro-innovation, pro-business, pro-wealth creation policies we are pursuing, big-hitting global businesses are confidently investing in the UK. The total investment pledged by international and British firms, both in the run-up to and during the summit yesterday, now stands at an estimated £63 billion, which will help ensure that 38,000 jobs are created. I would gently suggest that that is a resounding vote of confidence in both the UK’s economy and the Government’s growth mission.

[Mr Frith]

The Minister is making a powerful and clear argument for this Government’s commitment to a new partnership with business. Does he agree that although the sum of investment yesterday is important, grabs the headlines and gets people confident about the future, part of the brief he is responsible for is small businesses, and seeing that they get part of the large investment that was committed to? Will he explore in his final remarks how important that is to small business?

[Gareth Thomas]

If I may, I will come to that in one second.

One of the measures announced yesterday that will strengthen business confidence further, and which many businesses have been crying out for, as they told us when we were in opposition and as they have been telling us since we came into government, is an industrial strategy. All Governments have an industrial strategy, consciously or not, through act or omission. This Government are choosing actively to have and implement an industrial strategy to help businesses plan, not just for the next year but for the next 10 years and beyond. That strategy will not just help large businesses or ones in urban areas, which is something the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) asked about—I congratulate her on making her first speech as an Opposition spokesperson—but benefit all parts of the country and businesses large and small.

Our industrial strategy will inject capital into eight high-productivity, high-export, high-investment sectors in which the UK has a significant competitive advantage: financial services, professional and business services, clean energy industries, digital and technologies, advanced manufacturing, life sciences, creative industries and defence. Above all, our industrial strategy will show that we are listening and responding to the needs of businesses.

To that end, we will engage on those more complex issues that we know are barriers to investment: skills, data, finance, regulation, energy prices, grid connections, infrastructure and planning, which a couple of hon. Members rightly referenced. We want to view every single one of those measures through the lens of investment promotion. That is how we will continue to build long-term confidence, ensuring that our policies are made with business, for business.

Hon. Members raised questions about our Make Work Pay plan, and the number of businesses backing that plan is striking. On flexibility for employees, over 60% of UK managers surveyed by the University of Birmingham a couple of years ago said that home working improved their teams’ motivation, and a staggering 75% said flexible working boosted their teams’ productivity —something Opposition Members have complained about in the past. It is a similar story on pay. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that 70% of managers believe that raising the national minimum wage to reflect living costs would help, not hinder, their businesses. The hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield referenced the fact that many of the measures announced as part of our package will come in in 2026. That will enable us to continue to talk to businesses and employee representatives to ensure that we get the details right.

I have no doubt that the Budget on the 30th of this month will be a Budget for growth. We face a very difficult inheritance as a Government, and we have to fix the fundamentals of our economy. I gently say to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) that he may not be comfortable with the mess his party left us, but figures released last month show that there was another month of record Government borrowing, with debt at 100% of GDP. That is the inheritance that the previous Government left us. We have to fix those fundamentals, and we will do. It will be a Budget for growth, and I have no doubt that our economy and British business will continue to grow from strength to strength.

Post Office Capture Software: Kroll Associates Report

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

Earlier this year, concerns were raised by parliamentarians and postmasters about the Post Office’s Capture software, which was rolled out by the Post Office to some branches in the 1990s, and pre-dated Horizon. The concerns were that Capture software had bugs which may have caused shortfalls, leaving postmasters to pay the Post Office back, with some postmasters said to have been prosecuted as a consequence.

Responding to those concerns, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade committed on 9 September to publishing the results of forensic accountant Kroll Associates’ investigation into the Capture system as soon as we received its report. Kroll has now completed its investigation, and I published their report on Monday 30 September. The report is available on www.gov.uk and I have also placed a copy in the House Library.

Kroll Associates investigated the Capture software system, examined the available evidence from postmasters and others who have been working with postmasters to uncover the issues with the software. Further evidence from the Post Office was given to Kroll towards the end of their investigation. Considering this, Kroll has produced an addendum to this report which will be published shortly.

I am very grateful to the postmasters and postmasters’ families who spoke to and provided evidence to Kroll during the investigation. I recognise in some cases that this meant revisiting very distressing memories. I am grateful to those who attended the ministerial-chaired roundtable hosted by the Department for Business and Trade. I would also like to thank the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board for its continued work on redress issues, in particular Lord Beamish for helping to shine a light on the issues related to Capture.

In the report Kroll concluded there was a reasonable likelihood that Capture could have created shortfalls for sub-postmasters. Kroll has not identified any available evidence that Post Office Ltd’s audit, investigations or legal teams took into account known issues with Capture arising from bugs identified in various versions of the software in the course of their work.

I recognise that this report and its conclusions will be of considerable interest to postmasters and their families across the country. The Government will thoroughly examine Kroll’s report into the Capture system and its impact on postmasters. We will update the House on next steps in December.

[HCWS100]

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

The decline of too many high street businesses was one powerful example of the failure of the last Government’s economic record and the cost of living crisis they caused. Working with business and others, we are determined to breathe new life into our high streets. In particular, we will stamp out late payments, tackle soaring levels of retail crime and create a fairer business rates system.

[Alistair Strathern]

High street businesses such as Rose’s café in Shefford and Jamie’s Shoe Repairs in Hitchin do so much to bring joy and life to their high streets and make the towns and villages in my constituency so special, but far too many high street businesses right across my constituency have been feeling the squeeze over recent years and just did not feel that the previous Government had their back. What will we be doing differently to make sure that we will always be on the side of the high street businesses that make our communities such fantastic places to live?

[Gareth Thomas]

First, let me take this opportunity to say how much of a pleasure it is to see my hon. Friend back in this House; I went up to his constituency during the by-election campaign, and his result was one of many on election night that brought us all great pleasure.

We set out a five-point plan when we were in opposition to support businesses on high streets. At the heart of that was a plan to introduce a fairer business rates system, which I know colleagues in the Treasury are working very hard on. We also want to tackle the high levels of retail crime that scar too many of our high streets, and we will be bringing forward proposals on that in due course too.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

To grow, high street businesses in Eastbourne are relying on Government investment through initiatives such as the towns fund, of which my town was selected to be a beneficiary. Our towns fund board is fired up and ready to go, but still awaiting further instructions from Government on how to proceed. Will the Secretary of State, working with his Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government colleagues, urgently update me on whether Eastbourne’s high street businesses can still expect to benefit from the £20 million towns fund investment that they need and deserve?

[Gareth Thomas]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the towns fund is the responsibility of colleagues in MHCLG. I will happily draw his comments to the attention of the Minister who has responsibility for it. But we are determined to work across Government to breathe new life into our high streets, and I am sure that the Minister will be very interested to meet the hon. Gentleman and take forward his concerns.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Whether it is better buses, more policing or city centre living, support for our high streets ought to be a cross-Government approach, because of the many levers that are available. Can the Minister say a bit more about what conversations he is having with other Departments to ensure that support for high streets stretches across every facet of this new Labour Government?

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are policies across the whole of Government that impact on small businesses and particularly on high street businesses. One of the most significant issues is the need to see a fairer business rates system that creates better incentives for businesses to invest in the high street, in comparison with the competition from online giants, so we are working with colleagues in the Treasury on that. We are working with colleagues in the Home Office to address retail crime—there has been a huge surge in shoplifting—which my hon. Friend knows has scarred too many high streets. We are also working with other colleagues, as I referenced in response to the previous question, to try to bring forward a stronger offer to small businesses.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our high streets, and there are many such businesses in my constituency of Bridgwater. I understand, though, that SMEs now face paying thousands of pounds in fines if they do not uphold the Government’s new French-style employment reforms. Will the Minister consider exempting SMEs from any financial sanctions by the new fair work agency?

[Gareth Thomas]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to this House. I gently say that he will have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we have already consulted widely with the business community about our plans to improve rights for employees. We did that when we were in opposition and we have continued to do it in government. I am struck by the support that our plans have from small businesses and high street businesses, but we will continue to work with small businesses on the details of those plans.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

For too long, our high streets have been hostages to an outdated and damaging business rates system. Empty shopfronts and shuttered windows should never become the norm in our town centres. Small businesses in desperate need of a helping hand will have been deeply concerned not to see any mention of business rates system reform in the King’s Speech. Can the Minister assure us that business rates system reform is coming soon and that, when it does, it will be a comprehensive replacement of that damaging system?

[Gareth Thomas]

As I have said in response to previous questions, we are looking at that with Treasury colleagues. In opposition, we made commitments to introduce a fairer business rates system. Work on that is being led by Treasury colleagues, who will bring forward proposals in due course.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to improve the UK’s trading relationship with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Amesbury (Runcorn and Helsby) (Lab)]

T4. I welcome the ministerial team to their places. Business rates are a broken system that has hollowed out many high streets up and down the country. We are rightly committed to radically reforming that. What recent discussions have Ministers had with the Treasury to make sure that we do that at pace? Will a Minister meet me so that I can establish a banking hub in my Runcorn and Helsby constituency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the question about a banking hub in his constituency. As he will have heard in answers that I gave earlier, reform of the business rates system to tackle some of the egregious disincentives in respect of the need to invest in our high streets and the competition from online giants is something we took seriously in opposition and continue to take seriously in government. Colleagues in the Treasury are working hard to bring forward proposals to reform the business rates system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I remind Members to speak through the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Unfortunately for Government Members, and more importantly for the country, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent figures, which I know the Secretary of State struggles with, show that exports have dropped on her watch and are set to have declined again this year. If she has a moment to spare from her leadership campaign, she might read the landmark report published by Aston University last week on the significant boost for British exports that a veterinary agreement could deliver through British farmers and the agrifood industry. Why will she not pursue an agreement that is so obviously in Britain’s national interest?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The OBR puts out lots of figures and the Opposition cherry-pick the ones they think will be most helpful, thinking that we have not done our homework. I encourage the hon. Member to look at the OBR forecasts for growth for this country, which are very high, and I ask him which specific period he is referring to. He should look at what has happened to exports overall, not just periods including covid, which explain why we have had some drops in food exports.

[Gareth Thomas]

I asked the Secretary of State about the veterinary agreement; I suspect no one on the Opposition Benches will be surprised that she has not shown any interest in a trade agreement that would help British farmers. According to the House of Commons Library, under the last Labour Government exports rose by 55%, but since then exports have risen by only 32%. Is the truth not that British exporters always do better under a Labour Government?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is absolute rubbish. It is not true. The veterinary agreement that he is talking about would create dynamic alignment with the EU, which is not what this country voted for in 2016. We are delivering what the people voted for. Yes, there will be difficulties—we are sorting them out. It is time that the Opposition moved on and accepted the will of the people.

UK Trade Performance

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As usual, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I am always pleased to hear any positive news on trade and investment, but she appears, presumably inadvertently, to have missed out one or two facts and issues in her statement.

Under the Conservative party, business has suffered from endless U-turns and policy changes that undermine investment. There have been constant changes on policies, from net zero to corporate governance. The Government’s failure to address the big challenges facing business, such as skills shortages, infrastructure issues and net zero, have undermined business confidence. Foreign direct investment figures are down nearly 30% since 2016-17, according to the Government’s own figures. Without an industrial strategy, and with constant policy uncertainty, more businesses will not have the confidence to invest in the UK.

Specifically on trade, British exports in the past decade have grown slower than those of any other member of the G7 besides Japan. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, since the Secretary of State was appointed, British exports have dropped and are expected to decline again this year, with at best anaemic growth in each of the next three years. Ministers have cut funding to help small businesses get to the international trade shows that they need to attend in order to find new export markets, and have cut funding to allow business groups to lead their own trade missions to win vital new orders for British business.

Farmers and Conservative members think that the Government’s record on trade negotiations is one of giving away far too much for far too little in return. Ministers delivered a poor trade deal with Europe that has put up barriers to trade, raised costs for businesses and helped to drive up prices, and there is no sign of any plan to use next year’s review of the trade and co-operation agreement to try to address at least some of those issues. Then there is the Conservatives’ failure to deliver on the promises in their manifesto at the last general election to have trade agreements in place with at least 80% of the world, and to have a trade deal with the United States. The target to deliver £1 trillion of exports has been moved many times, and will at best be delivered 15 years late.

Perhaps the right hon. Lady could answer the following questions. Last week, we heard about the impact that the Government’s constant flip-flopping is having on the automotive sector, with Stellantis airing serious warnings. What discussions has she had with the Transport Secretary to try to mitigate the impact of the Conservative party’s chaos? As the devastating news from south Wales continues to come, we have heard next to nothing from the Secretary of State on the damage that she has allowed to our steel industry. Does she still think that spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant and leave us as the first developed country with no primary steelmaking capacity was “a great deal”, as she said at the time?

Given that this House has repeatedly been promised an amazing trade deal with India, usually by Diwali, will the right hon. Lady update the House on the state of free trade agreement negotiations with India? Lastly, given the media reports at the weekend, which have caused concern, will she update the House on whether FTA negotiations with the Gulf Co-operation Council are still ongoing or have stalled?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I could see that it was very difficult for him to find things to pick at in the statement, so I broadly welcome some of what he said, which implied that the good news is true.

The hon. Gentleman started with the OBR. He picked that statistic very selectively. Of course exports fell during covid; exports overall have grown. Many Opposition Members will say, “Oh, it’s just services.” That is because they do not understand the UK economy. The UK economy is 80% services, so it is good that services exports are going up. That is what we mainly do in this country.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Stellantis, and talked about U-turns. I remind him that the whole House voted for the net zero by 2050 target. It happened under a previous Conservative Government, but with the consent of the whole House. When business talks, we listen. The Opposition criticised us for making the changes that Stellantis asked for, so why is he now raising those comments? The Transport Secretary, the Prime Minister and I had a discussion—we do have discussions—and we extended the zero-emission vehicle mandate to ensure that we were not imposing undue costs on people if they were not ready to take up electric vehicles. We listen; the Opposition do not. Look at their plans for net zero. I assure the hon. Gentleman that businesses are absolutely terrified about what Labour would do with its new green deal, and all the measures that would just put costs on businesses and consumers.

The hon. Gentleman asked about steel. I am afraid that I need to correct several points. We saved jobs in Port Talbot—8,000 jobs were going to be lost, and we saved 5,000. If we want a net zero transition, we will have to move to electric arc furnaces, which require fewer staff. The Opposition cannot blame the Government for that while demanding a transition to net zero. We saved 5,000 jobs in Port Talbot. We invested £500 million out of a total £2 billion investment made with Tata. It is wrong to say that the Government are not saving steel; we are the only ones who have a plan for steel. The Opposition have no plan. We have a great plan, which will transform and regenerate south Wales.

The other thing that the hon. Gentleman said that was incorrect was about us having no primary steel production. We still have British Steel in Scunthorpe. There may be changes in Port Talbot around moving to electric arc furnaces, but he needs to remember that even the steel production that we have there relies on imports. We do not have iron ore here, so I recommend that he gets a briefing on exactly what is going on with steel production in the UK.

On India, the hon. Gentleman is right that a deal was promised by Diwali under a previous Prime Minister, but as soon as I became Trade Secretary, I said in this House over and over that it is about the deal, not the day. We do not sign trade deals that will not make businesses happy. We are keen to ensure that whatever we do will do right by our farmers. The Opposition laughed when I paused the FTA discussions with Canada. That was because what the Canadians were offering was not going to be good. The industry there is complaining that the UK got too good a deal from the CPTPP, but the Opposition do not talk about that. We are negotiating great deals for this country. I am very proud of the work that my Ministers and my Department are doing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. She is right, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who was a Labour Trade Minister, could verify those figures about our trade dropping.

[Gareth Thomas]

indicated dissent.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

Finally, we support new clause 12 from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). Although the Bill is narrow, it introduces a number of measures that affect performers and the manner in which they can assert their rights. It is important to understand as quickly as possible the practical impact of any unforeseen consequences, so we think it prudent to add new clause 12 to the Bill, and are happy to support it.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 4 to 7 and amendment 1. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to BPI. Let me at the outset say what a particular pleasure it was to listen to the maiden speech of my new hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). His description of his constituents’ comments to him during the by-election will chime with all on the Opposition side of the House. It is clear that he will be an asset to the House, and I think it is fair to say that south London’s loss is undoubtedly Kingswood’s gain.

We support accession to the CPTPP because of its geopolitical benefits and the benefits to trade, relatively limited thought they are set to be. Given that the Conservative party has delivered a recession, a cost of living crisis and the worst growth rate in the G7, any uptick in trade and ultimately growth, however limited, would be welcome. There remain, however, a series of concerns about the Government’s approach to the CPTPP and trade deals. Our amendments and new clauses seek to address the weak arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals; the growing concern about the investor-state dispute settlement; and issues around performers’ rights, environmental, animal welfare and food standards, and the help that businesses will be offered to exploit the benefits, however limited, of this deal.

On new clause 1, I recognise the concerns articulated by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which were echoed by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox), and I am sympathetic to the former’s call for an enhanced role for Parliament. I am also sympathetic to new clause 11 from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), under which Parliament would require an assessment of the impact of any new country’s joining the CPTPP. However, I think we need to go further than both those new clauses do. Labour’s new clause 4 would require Ministers to publish such an impact assessment in Parliament and to give the House a vote on any new country joining the CPTPP. Given the security issues, the impact on particular sectors of the economy and on jobs in the UK, as well as the opportunities that an accession could bring, the British people surely have a right to expect this House to consider the merits, or lack of merit, of any new accessions to the CPTPP.

During the Lords debate, the Minister said that he thought that a new state joining CPTPP would trigger the CRaG process in the UK, but the CRaG process, as increasing numbers of Members across the House have largely come to agree, is clearly not fit for purpose; PACAC is the latest Committee to make that clear, in its recent report. New clause 4 provides the opportunity to reform part of that process. Let me refer to what was said by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We were promised by the Secretary of State and by the Minister in Committee that there would be a debate under the CRaG process, as opposed to there being just this small implementing Bill. We now know that the debate will not happen, so that is another broken promise on trade.

The impact of new countries joining the CPTPP will vary, but could be considerable in certain situations. It is only right that this country expects the House to consider those impacts carefully. I hope that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and the hon. Members for Totnes, and for Chesham and Amersham, can be persuaded to support our new clause. It would achieve what they want in practice and go further. With the leave of the House, we will press our new clause to a vote.

On new clause 5, I hesitate to damage the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made excellent speeches on the ISDS. Over the past 10 years, the marked acceleration in usage of the ISDS by large, litigious corporations to challenge Governments’ climate-related or other environmental decisions has prompted concern at the highest levels in the US, in European capitals and at the UN, so much so that Governments across the world are increasingly excluding or revoking the ISDS provisions.

The problem with the ISDS is that it is secretive; it avoids perfectly effective domestic public legal systems; it discriminates against small and medium-sized businesses; it often prevents the voice of those with a genuine interest in the decisions from being heard; and it holds back environmental and other progressive public policy changes. Strikingly, the OECD could find no sustained evidence that the ISDS was key to securing and maintaining business investment. The Nuffield Trust’s briefing for today’s debate stated that the ISDS could enable companies to challenge some health regulations and NHS policies.

The US, Canada and the European Union have all taken steps to revoke the ISDS provisions in some of their major treaties. The average amount—this is just the published cases—that Governments have been forced to pay, from taxpayers’ money, is about $600 million for climate cases. It seems even more noteworthy that the UN Secretary-General’s special rapporteur on environment and human rights expressed concern just last September that the ISDS was a significant threat to the net zero transition, the Paris agreement and tackling climate change.

Some in government clearly share some of those concerns, as they wanted to exclude the ISDS from the bilateral trade deal with Canada, and supported its abolition from trade with the European Union. The Minister was somewhat evasive in Committee. Initially, he tried to duck questions on why the Government wanted to exclude the ISDS from a bilateral trade agreement with Canada but were quite happy to leave it in the CPTPP for Canadian investors to use. Given that Ministers have signed side letters with Australia and New Zealand to disapply the ISDS between our countries in the CPTPP, it seems bizarre that they have not attempted a similar approach with Canada.

Just after Committee, the Government confirmed that they were pulling out of the energy charter treaty, in which ISDS arrangements play a major role, saying that it does not fit with net zero ambitions. The Minister might want to try again to explain why it is essential that we remain committed to the ISDS elements of the CPTPP. It is time for a clear-eyed assessment of the risk that the ISDS poses to our interests. With the leave of the House, the Opposition will press new clause 5 to a vote.

There continue to be significant concerns about the environmental impact of accession to the CPTPP, and the impact on food standards and on animal welfare. The CPTPP covers two of the 11 deforestation fronts expected to account for 80% of deforestation by 2030. A range of environmental groups are very concerned that when the UK joins the CPTPP, preferential access to our markets will be created as a result of the removal of tariffs on palm oil. That could increase demand for products from threatened zones and exacerbate the risk of further deforestation. Ministers still have not published —never mind presented to this House—deforestation due diligence legislation under section 17 of the Environment Act 2021, so it is difficult to accept Ministers’ claims that they are fully committed to our climate change targets, and to protecting important sources of global biodiversity.

On food standards, deep concerns remain that, despite their protestations, the deals that Ministers have negotiated, including the CPTPP, will allow into the UK ever more food produced to lower standards, particularly animal welfare standards. The whole House will remember the words of the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who told the House that the Minister and his colleagues had given away

“far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

when they negotiated the UK-Australia free trade agreement. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Farmers Union, in particular, have raised concerns that new tariffs negotiated with Mexico and Canada will leave farmers in the UK much more vulnerable to imported eggs, pork and chicken that are produced to standards that would be illegal in the UK. The Pesticide Action Network UK raised concerns acknowledged by the Trade and Agriculture Commission—concerns also raised by an hon. Friend behind me—that more food produced using pesticides banned in the UK will be imported into the UK

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent, excellent speech. [Interruption.] Well, he knows it anyway, but there is nothing wrong with praising. Is it not also a sign of how the Government, time and again, let down our creative industries? If it were steel or farming, Conservative Members would be in the ear of Ministers through their trade partnership committees, but creative industries are locked out of many of them and ignored. That is why Labour has put forward a plan to put creative industries at the heart of our economic development.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is generous in his description of my speech—I am grateful to him—and absolutely right about the importance of Labour’s plan for the creative sector.

Reform of the UK’s copyright framework should not be taken lightly, and it should only follow proper and well-considered consultation. Otherwise, we risk endangering our gold standard of protection for our vital creative sector. I gently suggest to the House that the reforms allowed for under clause 5 should not have been shoehorned into this Bill, and certainly not without a thorough consultation having taken place first. In that regard we are sympathetic to the merits of new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. We will continue to scrutinise developments in this area, and we hope that Ministers will reach a final decision, after the consultation, that will not have the adverse impact that is feared by some outside the House.

As I have said, I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown in new clauses 2 and 3, and I therefore hope he will join us with enthusiasm in the Lobby later today. Similarly, I share the desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for much greater adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation. We raised this issue in Committee, and as I said earlier, I share his frustration—and that of other Members—that Ministers have not allowed the House a substantive debate under the CRaG process.

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, is right to underline the point about ILO obligations. In the 2022 Queen’s Speech we were promised an updating of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that would have required much stronger action and transparency on supply chains in order to eliminate forced labour. That measure seems to have disappeared, so we must insist on more robust action in our trade agreements if we are to wipe out the scandal of modern slavery.

[Gareth Thomas]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers will have heard his point; whether they will act on it remains to be seen, but I certainly hope they do. If we are lucky enough to be elected at the next general election, we will certainly work with the ILO to try to drive better adherence to its conventions.

Last but not least, I share the ambition of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who made a powerful speech, for a much more open dialogue on trade and the axing of more of the red tape, bureaucracy and barriers to trade with European markets thrown up by the poor negotiating skills of the last Prime Minister but two.

There remain, in particular, serious concerns about scrutiny of trade agreements and about the damage that ISDS provisions could do, so we will, with the leave of the House, press new clauses 4 and 5 to a vote.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debates on this important Bill. Let me begin with the new clauses relating to new accessions to the CPTPP: new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—who always demonstrates his passion on this important matter—new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green).

As the House may know, there is no rule within the CPTPP that requires new applicants to be dealt with on a “first come, first served” basis. Rather, it has been agreed within the group that applicant economies must meet three important criteria—called the Auckland principles—and it is on those key principles that applications will be assessed. Applicants must: first, be willing and able to meet the high standards of the agreement; secondly, have a demonstrated pattern of complying with their trade commitments; and thirdly, be able to command consensus of the CPTPP parties. Those strong criteria will be applied to each accession application. It is right that we in the United Kingdom, as a new member of the CPTPP group, work within the principles of the group to achieve a consensus decision.

I remind the House that while the UK rightly participates in discussions on this topic with CPTPP parties, we will only have a formal say over an application post-ratification and entry into force of the agreement. It is therefore crucial that we ratify the agreement and become a party, so that we can work with CPTPP members decisively on each current and future application. With that in mind, it would not be appropriate for the Government to give a running commentary on individual applicants, not least because to be drawn on individual applicants now, ahead of the UK becoming a party to the agreement, could have an impact on our ability to achieve that important goal of ensuring that the CPTPP enters into force. I should also make it clear that our own accession process has set a strong precedent. The robust experience that the UK has undergone has reinforced the high standards and proved that the bar is not easy to meet for any aspirant.

Regarding the scrutiny of any hypothetical future accession, I can assure the House that any accession of a new party to the CPTPP would require an amendment to the terms of the CPTPP. Therefore, as with the UK’s accession protocol, our firm intention is that such a future accession would be subject to the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—the CRaG process. I assure the House that CRaG is applicable to plurilateral agreements such as the CPTPP. The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral treaties as outlined in section 25 of CRaG.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

We support the UK’s accession to the CPTPP. Despite the concerns we raised during the Bill’s stages, we have not stood in the way of its passage through this House thus far and we do not intend to divide the House on Third Reading. We recognise the geopolitical benefits and the economic benefits, limited none the less as they are likely to be in the near future.

In Committee, we outlined a series of concerns about the inclusion of provisions on the investor-state dispute settlement, and its implications for the NHS, the environment and workers’ rights. We raised concerns about performer’s rights and why on earth the Government chose to launch a consultation on the provisions after the Bill had already begun making its way through Parliament—talk about putting the cart before the horse. We also raised environmental concerns, probing Ministers about deforestation, palm oil, increased carbon emissions, the use of pesticides, threats to indigenous wildlife, and the undermining of the UK’s commitment to combating climate change and preserving biodiversity.

The Secretary of State promised a debate on CPTPP under the CRaG process to the Business and Trade Committee. In Committee, we were also promised a debate on CPTPP by the Minister under CRaG, which has not happened. I say it gently to them both: sadly, it is one more example of Ministers ducking scrutiny of the trade deals they sign. It is almost as if they have something to hide.

We have been grateful in particular to the TUC, Chester Zoo, the World Wildlife Fund, the Trade Justice Movement, Transform Trade, the National Farmers Union, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Alliance for Intellectual Property for their help in ensuring that we fully understood the implications of the Bill. I am grateful for their generosity with their time and expertise.

One cannot help feeling that had the Government initiated a thorough consultation exercise much earlier in the proceedings, before the CPTPP was a done deal, we might have come out of the negotiations as less of a rule-taker and with a better deal for the UK. Better consultation with the nations and regions could have happened throughout the whole CPTPP process, but both the Scottish and the Welsh Governments lamented poor communication at key stages from Ministers. Hopefully lessons have been learnt, and we will all have to take the opportunity of the CPTPP review in 2026 to look at what more can be achieved.

I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee. I particularly thank my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for his invaluable contributions, help and support during the Bill’s passage, but I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for their time and commitment to that part of the scrutiny process. I thank Members on both sides of the House, and those in the Lords, who—on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—have joined in the hard yards, the necessary work, of scrutinising what is a key trade arrangement. I thank the Minister of State, too, for his particularly generous description of me in Committee as a “serial rebel”—which might surprise one or two—and I thank both him and the Secretary of State for their other contributions, some of which have been helpful. [Laughter.] I hope that the dialogue, especially that on the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and on performers’ rights, will continue, and I thank the Ministers for their letters to me on those issues.

The UK’s joining the CPTPP will not make up for the Government’s failure to deliver a good trade deal with Europe, or the Conservatives’ broken manifesto commitment that 80% of the world would be covered by new trade agreements—including a trade deal with India, which the Secretary of State herself said this month was highly unlikely to happen any time soon. We remain in the dark as to whether we will ever be tasked with scrutinising a UK-Canada trade deal, or whether negotiations are indeed ongoing, as the Minister says, or they are not, as the Canadians say. What we do know is that, while the Government have made some outlandish claims about the benefits of the UK’s joining the CPTPP, it is likely, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, to lead to just a slight increase in GDP “in the long run”. With exports having dropped last year and set to drop further this year, and given the three following years of anaemic growth in exports, even the smallest opportunity for growth is welcome.

The Bill is needed to incorporate the CPTPP agreement in domestic legislation, and that is something that we do not oppose. There are benefits to joining, and despite reservations, we certainly welcome the opportunities that will be opened up for some British businesses. For those reasons, as I have said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill’s completing its passage tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility said yesterday that exports, including from SMEs, will fall even more than expected this year; growth in exports will be less than 1% in each of the next three years; and other countries will not be hit the same way. There have been cuts in the funding to help businesses start exporting and there has been no deal with the United States, no Diwali deal with India, and no veterinary agreement with the EU to cut red tape and slash costs. What does the Minister think is the best explanation for the Government’s dismal performance on exports so far?

[Ms Ghani]

We can get the best explanation from looking at the data behind what the hon. Gentleman set out. He obviously omitted the international reality. In the same report, the OBR referenced the “sluggish growth” in “global economies” and mentioned that British goods and services will outperform, on average, G7 countries. Those are the facts on the ground. When it comes to exports, we are exporting not only into the EU but outside the EU. As I said earlier, professional and business services are increasing outside the EU by 19%. We have substantial programmes in place to help small and medium-sized enterprises. We are keen to learn and do as much work as we can. There will be far more work coming through as this is the year of the SME.

Budget Resolutions

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). I am afraid that this Budget will make little positive difference to his constituents or mine, or to the country at large. The cuts in national insurance announced today will not compensate for the interest rate rises my constituents have had to suffer, or for the plans announced by Conservatives in Harrow Council to push up council tax by some 16% in the coming years. The OBR confirmed today that living standards will stay below those of 2019 for at least another two years, meaning less money in my constituents’ pockets, in family budgets, and for our high streets.

The Budget will do little to reverse the sustained under-investment in public services in Harrow or across the country. Every school in my constituency now has less funding in real terms than in 2010. On average, schools in my constituency have seen a reduction in real terms since 2010 of almost £900 per pupil. In real terms, more than £12 million has been cut from school budgets since 2010 in Harrow West. The four high schools in my constituency have been hit particularly hard, seeing real-terms funding cuts of between £900 and almost £1,900 per pupil, and the primary schools have seen cuts in their spending power of between £200,000 and almost £600,000, compared with 2010. The excellent Pinner Park Primary School, which I was lucky enough to attend, has seen a real-terms cut per pupil of £880 since 2010, and a loss of almost £740,000 in spending power.

Many schools in my constituency, and indeed across the country, face huge problems recruiting and retaining teachers and other staff. In my constituency that is due in no small part to London’s housing crisis. I have always wanted to see the inner London allowance for teachers extended to outer London, to help deal with the recruitment crisis in my constituency and other parts of outer London. There was nothing in the Budget to deliver the level of investment that schools in my constituency deserve.

On special needs funding, although I welcome the small announcement that the Chancellor made today, Ministers still do not appear to have grasped the scale of need. In Harrow, which has traditionally been poorly supported by Conservatives—and whose problems have now been exacerbated by a poor Conservative Administration—just 29% of education, health and care plans were issued to support young people with significant special educational needs within 20 weeks, which is lower than rates in Barnet, Hillingdon and Brent.

Conservatives Ministers have three times rejected bids for funding from Harrow Council for another urgently needed special needs school, for 290 extra places. That shortage of locally provided, appropriate special educational needs and disabilities places is forcing the use of expensive private school places, causing transport costs to rocket and causing parents of SEND children the ever-present worry that their child’s place will be taken away, or that they will have to settle for a placement that is not fully appropriate. It is also placing heavier pressures on mainstream schools, which are not getting sufficient extra funding to ensure that some of their SEND pupils are properly supported.

Parents of children with special educational needs are telling me that the council locally—I know that this is mirrored nationally—does not have the resources or staff to complete those education, health and care plans in good time. The parents of one young person in my constituency, awaiting a second occupational therapy assessment in order to complete an EHCP that was started in June last year, have just received a letter to say that OT assessments will be delayed again because the service is running at a reduced level.

Support for children with special educational needs is in crisis, and this Budget is not offering the investment necessary to bring new hope to the thousands of families who have been let down by the Government’s failure to invest over the past decade in Britain’s next generation.

The NHS in Harrow is on its knees. Nationally, one in every seven people in England is on an NHS waiting list, which is more than ever before. That means they are putting their lives on hold, having to manage in pain and discomfort for months. For far too long, trying to get an appointment to see a GP in Harrow has been a struggle for too many people.

In a sign of the scale of the crisis in access to primary care, I understand that a new system for urgent GP appointments is being forced on all GP surgeries across north-west London. No consultation on that plan has happened up until now and independent medical advice suggests serious concerns about patient safety flowing from it. It would have been far better had the underfunding of the NHS not led to the closures of 8 am to 8 pm walk-in urgent care centres in my constituency. They eased the pressure on GP surgeries and, crucially, on accident and emergency services.

One major NHS reform that would make an immediate difference locally is for an investment in a 50% expansion in intensive care beds at Northwick Park Hospital, which serves my constituency—from a 24-bed unit at the moment to 36 beds. That would help to ease the huge daily pressure on A&E in what is the busiest hospital in London for blue-light ambulance visits. I make no criticism of the staff there; they are doing an impressive job. Sadly, though, this is a Budget that will see further cuts in the support available from the NHS, and a lack of investment in our schools, too. I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers will find a way to begin to put that damage right.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. It is great to have you in the Chair this afternoon—it is always good to have a Member of Parliament from a neighbouring borough in the Chair.

I am raising a point of order because, in a slightly uncharacteristically shifty moment, the Minister appeared not to know anything about an investor-state dispute settlement case involving Eurotunnel that was successfully pursued against the UK Government. I used our lunch suspension productively to find the newspaper coverage of that case, which dates back to 2 February 2016. I appreciate that the Minister may not have seen the coverage at the time—he was then the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, overseeing cuts to support for getting small businesses to trade shows, among other cuts—but I have the extract with me. I wonder whether the Minister might like to see it; he could then give us an assurance that he will answer the concerns about ISDS. So far, he has been notably reluctant to do so.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I welcome you to the Chair. I do not wish to be outdone by the hon. Member for Harrow West: I, too, represent a borough neighbouring yours. I am happy to go head to head with the hon. Gentleman at any time.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, I am happy for him to send me any evidence that he has. He said that the case was in 2016. He has been shadowing Trade and Business for most of the past eight years now, and it would appear to have taken him eight years to find the details of the case, which makes me think that it might not be the smoking gun that he thinks it is. However, I am happy for him to write to me with any details, and I will certainly have a look.

[The Chair]

I understand that the word “shifty” applies to the point, not to the Minister. That is correct, is it not?

[Gareth Thomas]

Absolutely.

[The Chair]

I am just checking, because otherwise the Clerks will be on me like a ton of hot bricks for allowing unparliamentary language about another Member.

Anyway, these are all points of information rather than points of order for the Chair. If the two Members are happy to swap information, let us leave it at that.

Clause 3

Procurement

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Huq. I know it was a great disappointment to you not to be here for the opening of my speech, but at least you can be comforted by hearing its conclusion. I will carry on where I left off this morning.

The absence of specific commitments to uphold International Labour Organisation conventions in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership framework further exacerbates the risk to labour standards. Historically, the UK has been a proponent of international labour standards, advocating for decent work and fair wages across the globe. The CPTPP, as it stands, offers little assurance that those principles will be protected, let alone advanced, in the context of increased trade liberalisation.

In the light of those challenges, it is imperative for any engagement with the CPTPP to include robust safeguards to protect labour rights and ensure that trade does not come at the expense of workers’ welfare. That includes advocating for the integration of binding labour standards in trade agreements and ensuring that all member countries commit to upholding basic rights such as freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and the elimination of forced and child labour.

The commitment to labour standards within the context of the CPTPP must reflect a balance between facilitating trade and protecting the rights of workers. Without explicit provisions to safeguard labour rights, there is a real risk that the benefits of trade will be unevenly distributed, with workers bearing the brunt of increased competition and deregulation. Ensuring that the CPTPP promotes fair and ethical trade practices is not just a matter of economic policy, but a reflection of our values as a society committed to fairness, equity and respect for human rights.

With the right amendments and considerations, the CPTPP can offer a pathway to achieving those goals. However, it requires a concerted effort to ensure that it enhances rather than undermines the economic and social fabric of our nation. It is about creating a future in which trade contributes not only to economic prosperity but to a fairer, greener and more equitable world. The requirement for amendments stems from a recognition that the current formulation of the CPTPP may not sufficiently safeguard against potential negative impacts on local industries, workers’ rights and environmental standards. Labour’s amendments signal our dedication to a trade policy that respects our commitments under international agreements, including those aimed at combating climate change, protecting biodiversity and upholding labour rights.

[Gareth Thomas]

I rise to support new clauses 1, 2 and 7 and clause 3 stand part. In support of new clause 1, I will add some remarks to the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Cardiff North.

I seek further clarification from the Minister on the environmental impact of the CPTPP, to better understand how the Government intend to mitigate the detrimental environmental effects of the UK’s accession to the bloc. I understand that about 90% of the world’s oil palm trees are grown on a few islands in Malaysia and Indonesia, and just 1% of Malaysian palm oil smallholdings are certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. That 1% constitutes approximately 40% of all palm oil plantations in Malaysia.

As I think all Members—even Government Members—recognise, deforestation is a major environmental crisis. It is now the second largest contributor to climate change globally, after burning fossil fuels. Nearly 90% of deforestation is attributed to agricultural expansion. The impact has not only affected our climate, but resulted in a sharp decline in native wildlife, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester set out.

Crucially, once ratified, the CPTPP will remove import tariffs on palm oil, irrespective of environmental credentials. As my hon. Friend noted, that risks contradicting commitments made by the Government under schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 to tackle illegal deforestation in UK supply chains. It is potentially irresponsible without the safeguards of due diligence secondary legislation, which is still due. In the other place, the Government said that they would bring forward that urgent secondary legislation some time in the spring of this year, but it remains somewhat vague. Any further clarification of the timeline from the Minister would be helpful.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will also press the Minister on the wider context. My hon. Friend highlights the important point made by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Cardiff North, which is that the Government seem to be neglecting their responsibilities. There appears to be a contradiction in Government policy between what we have heard today and other aspects of UK domestic legislation, such as the commitment to support the conference of the parties process. Will my hon. Friend press Ministers on that?

[Gareth Thomas]

I certainly want to press the Minister further on those issues.

To be fair to Lord Johnson, he committed to a monitoring report after two years. He said:

“I would be surprised…if the evaluation and monitoring reports did not cover information on…environmental standards, reduction of the risk of deforestation and many other areas.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2024; Vol. 835, c. 363.]

Although I take his commitment at face value, it would be sensible to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for such a report within three years, not least because we have not seen the secondary legislation, which is urgently needed.

Perhaps the Minister can give us additional clarity about what the review to which Lord Johnson committed would include. Will it include the way in which CPTPP membership affects the sustainable production of forest risk commodities, such as palm oil, in the UK supply chain? Will it specifically investigate the impact of CPTPP membership on deforestation? Those are key questions from stakeholder groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature and Chester zoo. It would be helpful to have additional clarity from the Minister about the review to which Lord Johnson committed and, crucially, about the secondary legislation that is due.

Has any further thought been given to the commodities that the secondary legislation will cover? The Government initially confirmed that they would look at six agricultural commodities, but now I understand that the secondary legislation will cover only non-dairy cattle, cocoa, palm oil and soy; coffee and rubber are missing. It would be helpful to know why.

I understand that the threshold for a company being required to comply is quite high: only businesses with a global annual turnover of £50 million will have to comply. It would be good to hear from the Minister why that particular figure has been set.

In the context of new clause 1, I want to raise some concerns from Pesticide Action Network UK. The hon. Member for Totnes, who sadly is not in his place, was keen to mention the Trade and Agriculture Commission report, in which Professor Bartels and his colleagues outlined their concern that more goods using pesticides that are not currently allowed in the UK will be imported as a result of CPTPP. Indeed, PAN UK has made clear its belief that membership of CPTPP is likely to increase food imports from CPTPP member countries, all of which have weaker pesticide standards than the UK’s. There are genuine concerns that there will not be sufficient controls on food imports to the UK, and consequently that weaker pesticide standards will develop here. I am sure that the Minister recognises that that will worry many people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I will try to be as convincing as possible. I thank the hon. Members for Slough and for City of Chester for tabling new clauses 1, 2 and 7, which would necessitate further assessments and reviews across various areas related to our accession to CPTPP. However, let me deal first, in a little more detail, with the point of order from the hon. Member for Harrow West, which related to the Eurotunnel case, because I think it needs to be clarified.

The UK was subject to a contractual dispute regarding the specific terms of a concession agreement—this was under the last Labour Government—under a specific treaty between France and the UK on the construction and operation of a channel link. This contractual dispute is different from more traditional ISDS claims, such as the ones that can potentially be brought under CPTPP, which are open to the more general category of investors under an investment treaty. The UK has investment agreements containing ISDS provisions with about 90 trading partners. I reiterate that it has never been subject to a successful claim under these agreements.

However, I note the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for talking about ISDS. He has been a Member for some 27 years, so I thought I would go back and see where his enthusiasm for speaking about this came from. He has spoken about ISDS six times in his 27 years, but the first mention of his concern about ISDS came on 18 June 2020. It took him some 23 years here to first voice his concern about this issue, so I am not entirely sure about his enthusiasm for raising it.

[Gareth Thomas]

rose—

[Greg Hands]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me finish, because it does not end there. He was Trade Minister for two years, between 2007 and 2009. I thought that when he was Trade Minister he might have said something about ISDS, which he is so passionately against. He actually had the opportunity to do something about it then, but he did not mention ISDS in that time. Perhaps he can explain his silence for some 23 years on this issue about which he feels so passionately.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving us some answers about the Eurotunnel tribunal case and about ISDS in that context. One of the other questions I asked him about ISDS and, particularly in the context of new clause 1, about its potential impact on the environment was why he supports ISDS in the context of CPTPP but not in the context of negotiations with Canada over a bilateral free trade agreement. He has yet to give an answer to that question. Perhaps he can do so now.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but we have a debate on ISDS coming up under new clause 5, so I will be happy to talk further about it then. We are also having a debate on where CPTPP interacts with other trade agreements, but quite often, if a different trade agreement has ISDS provisions, it may or may not be desirable to include ISDS provisions in a further trade agreement. It would be worth looking at how ISDS works in each of the trade agreements.

The Government have demonstrated that we take parliamentary scrutiny of our FTA agenda seriously. A full impact assessment for the UK’s accession to CPTPP was published at signature in July 2023, alongside the accession protocol text and a draft explanatory memorandum. That included assessments of the potential economic impact on UK GDP and, indeed, the environmental impacts. As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission was commissioned to scrutinise the accession protocol and to produce a report on whether the measures are consistent with the maintenance of UK statutory protections in relation to animal and plant health and life, animal welfare and the environment. The TAC concluded in its advice published on 7 December 2023 that

“CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to (a) animal or plant life or health, (b) animal welfare, or (c) environmental protection”

and even that it

“strengthens the UK’s ability to maintain its levels of statutory environmental protection.”

I think the hon. Member for Slough claimed that farmers were against it or are sceptical. I can give him a quote because , on this occasion at least, the president of the National Farmers Union, Minette Batters, was supportive of CPTPP, saying that the

“government continues to maintain its commitment to our food safety standards.”

She further stated that the UK achieved a

“balanced outcome, particularly with respect to managing market access in our most vulnerable sectors.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

If I may say so, I think that is a slight mischaracterisation of the former Environment Secretary’s critique of the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreement. I was in the main Chamber when this was debated in, I think, the early part of 2023. I think his critique was directed more at the tariff reduction and the tariff schedule than any reference to standards on animal welfare and food production. My impression was that, in his view, the tariff reduction was too rapid on Australian produce coming in.

I will say to the hon. Member for Slough that CPTPP also includes an extensive environment chapter, which recognises parties’ sovereign right to establish their own levels of domestic environment protection and priorities. This includes measures in the pursuit of reaching net zero and other environmental goals. The parties also affirm their commitment to implement multilateral environment agreements to which they are party. All the CPTPP members are signatories to the Paris agreement, as well as multilateral environment agreements covering wider environmental areas such as biodiversity, ozone-layer protection and pollution. The parties further recognise the importance of trade in environmental goods and services in the environment chapter. Parties are committed to endeavour to address any barriers to trade raised in this context. For example, under the CPTPP there will be no tariffs on UK exports of new electric vehicles and wind turbine towers, which support the UK and the CPTPP parties’ transition to low-carbon economies.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will, but then I will make some progress.

[Gareth Thomas]

I will endeavour to be brief and to the point. Given his reference to all the parties being signatories to the Paris agreement, I will gently bring the Minister back to the question of ISDS, on which I know he is always enthusiastic to answer questions. Can he be absolutely clear today with the Committee that no ISDS claim is likely to be successful where environmental considerations have been a factor in a Government taking a particular decision?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to go down a hypothetical road where possible court cases may or may not be successful. I reiterate that the UK has never lost an ISDS case, and CPTPP does not prevent a domestic right to regulate, so I am confident in our position on that. I do not think speculating on future court cases would be appropriate for any of us in this Committee Room.

We remain committed to our environmental and sustainability goals, including forest protection. We will continue to work domestically and with partners internationally to pursue our ambitions for nature, climate and sustainable development, including in CPTPP and multilateral fora such as the WTO, climate and biodiversity COPs—I was proud to represent the UK at COP26 as an environment and climate Minister—and through the forest, agriculture and commodity trade dialogue. The hon. Member for City of Chester asked specifically about this, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff North. I can answer that in spring of this year, the Government will be laying our forest risk commodities legislation under the Environment Act. It will make it illegal for larger businesses operating in the UK to use key forest risk commodities produced on land occupied or used illegally.

The Government have confirmed that palm oil products would be included under the regulated commodities. Do not just judge us on our words; judge us on our deeds. It is encouraging that 86% of UK imports of palm oil were certified as sustainable in 2022. That is up from 16% in 2010 under the last Labour Government, when the hon. Member for Harrow West was the Minister for International Development. He might have had more concern with these issues than perhaps he showed at the time; he is saying that he does now. Deforestation related to palm oil in Malaysia has fallen by 60% since 2012, in the latest available figures, which were in 2018. We would like to see more recent figures, but none the less we are seeing a really encouraging trend. The UK in particular has gone from 16% under the last Labour Government to 86% being certified as sustainable. We will keep working with countries such as Malaysia, which is a party to CPTPP, to build on that work.

The CPTPP environment chapter strengthens co-operation on addressing deforestation and forest degradation and allows parties to co-operate through the FTA’s dedicated environment committee. We have also agreed a joint statement with Malaysia setting out our shared commitment to work together to promote the sustainable production of commodities and to protect forests. Moreover, the UK and Malaysia are signatories to the Glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests and land use, and we are committed to halting and reversing deforestation by 2030. I refer once again to the report of the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which concluded that

“it is unlikely that CPTPP will lead to an increase in palm oil being grown on deforested land.”

I remind Opposition Members that they are continually having to tell us that they are in favour of joining CPTPP, yet at every single moment available they make speeches against the UK joining it. The hon. Member for Cardiff North said that it “makes a mockery” of the UK's environment commitments. If she thinks that it makes a mockery of our commitments, why on earth is she in favour of it? I welcome her being in favour and voting for or not voting against it on Second Reading, but if she thinks that something is making a mockery of this country, why on earth is she in favour of it? Perhaps she can explain that dichotomy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert—

“1AA. The Secretary of State may only cancel the registration of a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication under paragraph 1A after—

(a) an impact assessment has been published, and

(b) a three month consultation process has been undertaken.”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 36, at end insert—

“(11A) The Secretary of State must, within three years of Royal Assent to this Act, publish an assessment of the impact of the CPTPP on the operation of Geographical Indications in the United Kingdom.”.

Clause stand part.

[Gareth Thomas]

The Opposition support clause 4 standing part of the Bill, but we wish to probe the Minister a little, hence amendments 3 and 4.

The intellectual property chapter in CPTPP includes provisions for the protection and enforcement of geographical indicators. We have had the privilege of an intervention from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. He might be particularly interested to know that two particular very interesting products from the north-west have secured GI status in the UK. The first is traditional Cumberland sausage; the second is Beacon Fell Lancashire cheese. I will come back to those a little later on.

The intellectual property chapter builds on present international intellectual property agreements in relation to rules on transparent and fair administrative systems for the protection of GIs, including rules for opposing GI status being granted to a particular product and the cancellation of GI status. I understand that the NFU thinks that the scope of the provisions for GIs in the CPTPP intellectual property chapter is fairly limited, and that a number of CPTPP countries are fundamentally opposed to food GIs. The only GI protections currently administered within CPTPP have been agreed on through bilateral side letters and ascribed to spirits and wines. It would be helpful to hear whether the Minister shares that somewhat bleak assessment.

Clause 4 seeks to amend specified pieces of retained EU law, as I understand it, so that an application to register a GI case can be opposed on the grounds that it is likely to cause confusion with a pre-existing trademark or the application for such a trademark. I understand the clause also expands the grounds on which the registration of an agrifood GI can be cancelled. Could the Minister give us an example of where such a decision might be made? What consultation would take place before such a decision were taken?

GIs are proven to boost export returns to primary producers—our farmers—and the UK has more than 80 products with some form of protected GI status. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister when a UK Minister last spoke to the UK Protected Food Names Association, the trade body for products with GI status. Beyond Scotch whisky, I cannot find any obvious sign that promoting GIs is a significant part of the Minister’s departmental work plan. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

What plans do Ministers have to use the CPTPP review to try to break down opposition in other CPTPP countries to British GIs? Clearly, promoting British products with a geographical indicator could help to secure greater export returns for the UK agrifood industry and, specifically, for our hard-pressed farmers.

Will accession to CPTPP help to secure GI status in countries such as Japan? I ask because the then Secretary of State for Trade, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), as a result of what she called a “historic” trade deal with Japan, promised that some 70 iconic British foods, from Cornish pasties, Welsh lamb, Melton Mowbray pork pies, to the traditional Cumberland sausage and the Beacon Fell Lancashire cheese, would secure GI status, unless there were exceptional circumstances, within five months in Japan. That was more than three and a half years ago. When I wrote to the current Secretary of State to remind her of that commitment back in late November, the Minister who replied said that he was unable to provide an exact timeframe for products such as Whitstable oysters, Scottish wild salmon, Carmarthen ham and Yorkshire forced rhubarb to secure protected status.

Can the Minister explain why there was such a great fanfare and promise of GI status in Japan within five months for those great, iconic British products from across the United Kingdom, and yet here we are, three and a half years on, and I can find no clarity as to whether any of the 70 UK GIs have now secured protected status in Japan? Our amendments are probing amendments, but the issues I raise are serious. I look forward to a considered reply from the Minister.

[Greg Hands]

Clause 4 relates to designations of origin and geographical indicators. As with other clauses in the Bill, it is necessary to ensure that the UK can comply with the CPTPP when it accedes. The clause amends the domestic legislative framework that regulates agrifood geographical indications.

Let me start by assuring all members of the Committee that the Government are committed to transparency. On amendment 3, the Secretary of State already has a duty under existing GI legislation to publish a list of names for which a cancellation application has been received and to publish applications in cases where, following scrutiny, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conditions for cancelling the GI have been met. Applications are published on gov.uk and a three-month period is allowed for those with a legitimate interest to lodge a notice of opposition. Those arrangements will continue to apply to cancellation applications in the future, including cancellation applications made under the new cancellation grounds created by the changes the Government are making through the Bill.

I also point out to the Committee that the process of publishing a list of applications received and publishing applications to cancel a GI following successful scrutiny is the same as when an application to register a new GI is submitted. It seems to me that those equivalent processes should be subject to equivalent levels of scrutiny. In other words, the registering of a GI should have the same scrutiny as a proposal to cancel a GI. Undertaking an impact assessment, as the Opposition propose yet again, and a new three-month consultation process on top, in addition to the existing opposition process for the cancellation of GIs, which already includes a three-month period for opposition from those with a legitimate interest, would duplicate and unbalance these processes.

In summary, amendment 3 is unnecessary and would cause unwarranted delays given that transparent and public procedures already exist under domestic GI legislation. Those with a legitimate interest are already given the opportunity to oppose the cancellation of a GI, and that will not be changed by the Bill.

Turning to amendment 4 on impact assessments, I would like to reassure hon. and right hon. Members that the Government take parliamentary scrutiny of their FTA agenda and domestic implementation seriously. With that in mind, a full impact assessment for the UK’s accession to CPTPP was published at signature in July 2023 alongside the accession protocol text and a draft explanatory memorandum. As has already been said, the Government also intend to publish a biennial monitoring report and a comprehensive evaluation report for the whole agreement within five years of the UK’s accession that will include, in addition to an assessment related to environmental impacts, under which GIs are covered, an assessment relating to intellectual property. An inclusive and participatory process will be at the heart of that evaluation, providing structured opportunities for a wide range of stakeholders to share their views and provide evidence. Therefore, additional impact assessments of the type being proposed would cost the taxpayer and entirely duplicate the existing impact assessments without showing the effects of the agreement as a whole.

The hon. Member for Harrow West asked about countries taking different approaches to GI protection. That is indeed correct. Not all parties around the world have the same approach to geographical indicators, trademarks, intellectual property and so on. Crucially, the CPTPP will not have an impact on the UK’s domestic scheme of geographical indicators. The Government’s objective in any trade negotiations will be to support the best possible outcome for the UK’s geographical indicators and the UK economy as a whole. The aim in trade negotiations is to ensure the high standards of our domestic GI schemes continue to be upheld. CPTPP enables new dialogue on standards of GI protection with parties, which we will use to further the protection of our GIs abroad.

GIs are included in many of our new free trade agreements, and the hon. Member for Harrow West already mentioned the ones with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. When I go around the world, I am always keeping an eye out for products such as Cumberland sausages, Melton Mowbray pork pies, even Stornoway black pudding, English sparkling wine, Scotch whisky and Irish whiskey. It is great to see such fantastic British food and drink produce being available on plates right the way around the world, including in Totnes. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes particularly enjoys something with a fine geographical indicator attached to it; indeed, he may have just returned from enjoying such produce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

rose—

[Greg Hands]

I will give way because I know the hon. Member for Harrow West had a tough lunch break researching a Eurotunnel case from under the last Labour Government. I doubt if he had any chance to eat anything with a geographical indicator attached to it, so of course I will give way to a final point from him.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Can he give us an update on what happened to all the products that were promised GI status in Japan? Has there been any progress on securing those since his letter to me in November, whether for traditional Cumberland sausage, Beacon Fell Lancashire cheese, Gloucestershire cider or Gloucestershire perry, which might appeal to the hon. Member for Totnes? The last Trade Secretary but one promised they would have GI status in Japan and yet not much progress seems to have been made.

[Greg Hands]

There is a process domestically in Japan, which the hon. Member will be aware of from our debates on that free trade agreement. I would be happy to have a look again at the letter I wrote to him in November and see what progress has been made. This is a work in progress to make sure that our fine food and drink continues to arrive on dinner tables in Japan, where I know that it will be eagerly devoured by our allies and friends in the Pacific.

On the impact of CPTPP on the operation of geographical indicators in the United Kingdom, the Bill relates only to the Government’s agrifood scheme in Britain, where the high standards of our domestic GI scheme will continue to be upheld. For all the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw his amendment.

[Gareth Thomas]

As I indicated in my initial remarks, amendments 3 and 4 were tabled as probing amendments. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Performers’ rights

[Gareth Thomas]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 5, page 5, line 23, after “country” insert

“which is a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Amendment 6, in clause 7, page 7, line 17, leave out sub-subsection (c).

Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 7, line 28, at end insert—

“(5) Section 5 comes into force twelve months after the day on which this Bill is passed.”

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful for the opportunity to move amendments 5, 6 and 7, which go to the heart of the controversy that has developed around clause 5 and the issue of performers’ rights.

The Minister has attempted to bounce through the House of Lords and appears to be attempting to bounce through the House of Commons, using the Bill, changes to the way that those who make music are paid from broadcasting and the public playing of music. Pressure in the other place on Second Reading forced the Minister there to agree to publish a consultation document on the issue. That document was released on 15 January. The consultation is due to close on 11 March this year.

Who at this stage knows when Ministers will be able to tell the House what policy conclusions the Ministers have reached from that consultation? What is clear is that neither the House of Commons nor the House of Lords will have been given a clear steer on which way the Government want to go on how recording labels and artists are paid when their work is broadcast before the passage of this legislation is completed and Royal Assent granted. I gently suggest to the Minister and the hon. Member for Totnes that this is a further example of the scrutiny of this trade treaty being less than optimal.

Given that the issue could have significant consequences for one of the most significant parts of our economy, the creative industries, why did Ministers not at least publish a consultation document in good time and publish their conclusions before the start of the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords?

Ministers have also claimed that the provisions are an integral part of CPTPP. I confess to being a little sceptical about that, despite the Minister’s letter to me after the Second Reading debate in which he again made that claim. Many industry groups certainly do not believe that any of the text in CPTPP requires the Government to make the changes to increase the rights of foreign performers that the Bill provides for. I gently suggest that the truth is that the Intellectual Property Office has convinced Ministers that, putting CPTPP accession to one side, Britain is not currently compliant with the Rome convention for the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations and/or the World Intellectual Property Organisation’s performances and phonograms treaty. Again, it would be good to hear the Minister’s assessment of that.

The industry clearly believes that what Ministers want to do, via the clause and the very late associated consultation, would turn down the tap of investment that has supported recently the likes of new British music stars Olivia Dean, Dave, and The Last Dinner Party in launching their careers, in favour of foreign artists such as those who were up for the Grammys at the beginning of this month. Talented winners there were aplenty at the Grammys, but Ministers appear to want to disadvantage our homegrown talent and support their global competitors instead.

As I have alluded to, Ministers have implied that they have to make these changes to be compliant with CPTPP, but it is interesting that there is no reference to CPTPP in the impact assessment that I have here. I am looking at the policy objectives on page 1 that the impact assessment seeks to cover. It seeks to

“ensure UK copyright law is consistent with the requirements of the Rome Convention and WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) Performances and Phonograms Treaty”,

to

“reduce costs to UK users of foreign music”

and to

“increase revenues for the UK creative industries where this can be done without significant costs to UK users or consumers”.

There is no mention at all of compliance with CPTPP. Indeed, the talk in the impact assessment is of US labels and US artists and not CPTPP countries.

On the amendment specifically, which seeks to limit the rights under clause 5 to CPTPP countries, business groups do not believe that any of the text in the CPTPP requires the Government to make such changes to increase the rights of foreign performers that the Bill provides for. The Minister claimed exactly that in his letter, but he added a crucial phrase—“and the performance also meets further eligibility criteria set out in the treaties on performers’ rights”—so it would appear that, in essence, no new rights are granted by the CPTPP. It is just that the Intellectual Property Office and Ministers now believe that the Rome convention, one of those crucial treaties on performance rights, has been implemented wrongly in the UK.

I understand, too, that the European Court has found on a case in Europe that may have some bearing on the attitude of Ministers and the Intellectual Property Office: the so-called RAAP—Recorded Artists, Actors, Performers —decision. Again, however, it would appear odd if the RAAP decision were motivating the change, given that we are no longer in the European Union and that UK courts are now free to deviate from EU law. It will be useful to hear from the Minister the real reason behind the clause.

Let me ask as well, why are we giving all international performers those rights? Malaysia, for example, a member of the CPTPP, has not even signed the Rome convention, which provides for those rights. It would be interesting to know which page or part of CPTPP means that these legal changes have to be to be made. I ask that because when we signed bilateral free trade agreements with Japan and Australia, both of which are signatories to CPTPP and have signed the Rome convention and the WPP treaty, changes such as those set out in clause 5 were not required. Will the Minister state, too, whether any of those changes were asked for by CPTPP countries?

On amendments 6 and 7, it would be helpful to understand whether the Minister accepts that it is unhelpful that the Government’s decision following the consultation will occur only after the passage of the Bill. In his letter to me, the Minister appeared to deny that some of the options in the impact assessment could lead to a £100 million impact on British performers. Others predict a lower impact. One of the options appears to suggest that there would be no impact, but at this stage it is difficult for any member of the Committee to be certain exactly what the impact will be, because the consultation has not been completed and we have no idea how Ministers intend to move forward on the changes.

The Minister is asking all in Committee and indeed those outside the House to take it on considerable trust that the Government will consider their views properly and make the right decisions on behalf of the British music industry and all those new potential artists that might emerge in the shadow of the Stormzys and the Dua Lipas, and be central to the UK creative industry going forward. Amendments 5 and 6 are probing amendments. Amendment 7 might be a probing amendment, but I think it could be reasonable to delay the implementation of this particular part of the Bill in order that we may understand fully the direction that Ministers want to take once the consultation has been completed.

[Greg Hands]

I turn to amendments 5 to 7 to the provisions on performers’ rights. As we have heard, the amendments would do several things. I will deal them in turn, but I first reiterate the purpose and necessity of clause 5. The intellectual property chapter of CPTPP sets the minimum standards of protection that parties must provide in their law and specifies who they must extend the protections to. The requirements are not unique to CPTPP: they are based on the standards in multilateral treaties on copyright and performers’ rights. UK law already exceeds the minimum standards of CPTPP and generally makes rights available to foreign nationals. However, the basis on which performers qualify for rights in UK law is not fully consistent with CPTPP or some of the treaties on which the IP chapter of CPTPP builds. The measures in the Bill, along with the secondary legislation that will be laid at the end of this month, will fix that. They will ensure that every creator who is entitled to rights in CPTPP will enjoy them in UK law. That is a necessary part of our accession to CPTPP.

[Gareth Thomas]

The Minister says that our rights are not compliant with the Rome treaty. However, that treaty has been in place for more than 40 years, and there has never been any suggestion until now that we as a country are not compliant with the rules set out in it. Why are we now suddenly not compliant?

[Greg Hands]

The reasons are that the Bill implements some of the provisions in CPTPP. For example, clause 5 implements articles 18.8 and 18.62 of CPTPP. The provisions require parties to provide the rights in CPTPP to performers if they are a national of another CPTPP party and the performance meets further eligibility criteria set out in the treaties on performers’ rights or is first published or recorded in another CPTPP party, regardless of whether the performer is a national of a CPTPP party. This is all about being able to accede to CPTPP. Existing UK law does not provide for all the eligibility criteria in the treaties on performers’ rights and does not take account of where a performance is published.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

Let me finish. This is about ensuring that our regime is aligned and consistent with CPTPP—the international treaty to which we are acceding. The Bill amends UK law to implement the additional criteria. I think the hon. Gentleman is going to ask if the Government can confirm that they are making only the changes necessary for the UK to comply with CPTPP. The UK’s accession to CPTPP requires that we expand the criteria by which foreign performers can qualify for rights in UK law, and that is what the Bill does. The changes in the Bill will also apply to performers from other countries that are a party to a relevant treaty on performers’ rights for consistency with the UK’s obligations under those treaties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I draw the Minister back to the impact assessment, which makes no mention of CPTPP. All the talk in the impact assessment that came out with the consultation document is of US performers and businesses. If the consultation is so much required by clause 5 and our accession to CPTPP, one would surely expect the impact assessment to make some reference to artists and their rights from CPTPP countries, but it does not: it references just US performers.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He raises a good point, but if I am not mistaken he is referring to the IPO consultation, rather than the CPTPP consultation. The IPO consultation was already planned and is not directly or exclusively about our accession to CPTPP. The IPO consultation is fundamentally different from the CPTPP accession process, although they treat of a similar issue. He asked whether the amendments were asked for by CPTPP parties. The answer is no—they are necessary for the UK to join CPTPP. One of the most important things to understand in reference to CPTPP is that it is a pre-existing agreement; it is not negotiating new text. This needs to be done for the UK to join CPTPP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

We are all looking for a positive impact on Britain’s creative industries. It is one of our key asks, and one of the key things that we market abroad as a whole Government, ensuring that our creative industries get marketed well—especially in CPTPP countries. The fast-growing markets of the Asia-Pacific and the Pacific rim are exactly the sort of places we want to reach. I will come on to describe in a moment the interaction with the IPO consultation and where that might take the provisions we are talking about today.

I return to amendment 6, which would prevent the avoidance of unnecessary disruption and the multi-stage process that I was talking about. It would make disruptive, successive changes to the law on this area much more likely. It would introduce risks to the creative industries, which we all wish to support. I am sure the Opposition would not wish to do anything that created additional risks to the creative industries and to consumers, with no upside.

Amendment 7 would apply even more widely. It would delay the commencement of all the performers’ rights provisions until

“twelve months after the day on which this Bill is passed.”

We cannot accede to CPTPP until our law meets its requirements. That requires that we make the changes in the Bill. Delaying those measures means delaying our accession and delaying its benefits to UK businesses, including in the creative industry sectors, and to consumers.

For the reasons that I have set out, the Government cannot support the amendments. However, I understand that they reflect concerns about the scope of clause 5 and the possible impact on creative industries. Although we must make these changes, there is a possibility of modifying the impact of the Bill in one important area: the right of performers to be paid royalties when their performances are broadcast or played in public. I understand that that issue has been of most concern to some in the creative sectors. For that right and the equivalent right for producers of sound recordings, we have some flexibility under CPTPP and other treaties to modify our approach. Powers in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 will allow us to do so through secondary legislation.

As has been mentioned, the Intellectual Property Office is consulting publicly on the question of how we provide those rights to foreign nationals. The consultation is ongoing until 11 March, and we aim to implement its outcome in parallel with the Bill coming into effect. The consultation process will ensure that there is sufficient opportunity for stakeholders to consider, prepare for and influence the outcome in that area.

There is no benefit to delaying the changes to the law, as the amendments seek to do; as I have set out, there are clear risks in doing so. I hope I have made it clear why we cannot support the amendments, which are unnecessary and in some cases damaging. I ask the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw his amendment.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. As I indicated, amendments 5 and 6 are probing amendments reflecting the concerns in the industry; I am grateful to hear that he recognises them.

On amendment 7, I struggle to be entirely convinced that a slight delay so that we could understand the results of the IPO consultation and the policy direction that will flow from it would frustrate the whole CPTPP accession process. I will not press amendment 7 to a vote for now, but we will certainly return to the matter on Report.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 5.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Assessment of the impact of the CPTPP Chapter on government procurement—environment

“The Secretary of State must, within three years of Royal Assent to this Act, lay before Parliament assessments of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Chapter on government procurement on—

(a) the Government’s plans to tackle climate change;

(b) the sustainable production of forest risk commodities, including palm oil, within UK supply chains,

(c) deforestation, and

(d) the Government’s environmental targets and environmental improvement plans established under the Environment Act 2021.”—(Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Gareth Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Review of negotiation and implementation of Intellectual Property Chapter—

“Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish—

(a) a review of the lessons learned from the negotiation and implementation of the CPTPP Chapter on intellectual property, and

(b) an assessment of how this experience might inform negotiation and implementation of future free trade agreements.”

[Gareth Thomas]

New clauses 3 and 4 are both probing amendments. On new clause 3, I refer the Minister to the evidence that Albert Sanchez-Graells, professor of economic law at the University of Bristol, gave to the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill Committee some 16 months ago. He raised concerns about the potential implications of the differences between the procurement rules under CPTPP and those to which Britain was already committed under the WTO agreement on Government procurement, the GPA. His evidence was also accepted by the International Trade Committee as a significant concern.

Professor Sanchez-Graells also argued that seeking to improve procurement opportunities for British businesses via the CPTPP to get a GPA-plus arrangement would mean legal uncertainty about the remedies available to British businesses if they ran into problems, because the CPTPP procurement chapter seeks to incorporate the current WTO GPA and then amend its provisions. In comparison, our trade deal with Europe incorporates the GPA in full and then builds upwards from it.

Professor Sanchez-Graells argued that there were

“two main areas of problem: one is the national treatment rules on access to markets, which applies in particular to suppliers in different jurisdictions, and the other is access to remedies.”—[Official Report, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2022; c. 41, Q51.]

It was access to remedies that particularly concerned him. At column 41 of his evidence to the Bill Committee, he noted that among the provisions of the procurement chapter in the Australia FTA—he confirmed at column 43 that this is replicated in the CPTPP procurement chapter—is a clause allowing the exclusion of legal remedies completely on the basis of public interest. He made it clear that, for a high-profile project, that could mean that the courts might set aside any claims for suspension of the procedure or even for the compensation for damages, if it were believed to be in the national interest of the country in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

At first glance, UPOV 91 appears to require relatively tight and inflexible national intellectual property regimes, which in some cases can lead to heavy fines or even the imprisonment of farmers who violate them, often unknowingly. In countries such as Malaysia and Chile, UPOV 91 has been controversial, with often decades of resistance from civil society, farmers and environmental groups that feel that a much tighter patent regime on seeds will lead to the loss of indigenous knowledge and biodiversity. We should surely tread carefully when trade agreements place obligations on member states that could damage livelihoods and/or the environment and consider, if necessary, how to mitigate those impacts as much as possible.

Is the Minister willing to say now, or via a letter to the Committee, what assessment he has made of the UK’s commitment to UPOV 91 and its impacts on our Paris agreement, our climate, the sustainable development goals and other UN treaty commitments? What assessment has been made of the impact of CPTPP on small farmers, who are so vital to the world’s food and environment? Did he consider a side letter, following the example of New Zealand, which disapplies the UPOV 91 requirements between the UK and other member states? It would be interesting to hear his views on those questions. As I made clear, new clauses 3 and 4 are probing amendments, but none the less the issues raised are serious concerns that have been put to us. It would be good to hear the Minister’s response.

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Members for tabling the amendments, which regard reviews of the Government procurement and intellectual property chapters of the CPTPP. I confess that I will not spend long on this, as once again the amendments are all about impact assessments.

Once again, I assure the Committee that the Government intend to publish a biennial monitoring report and a comprehensive evaluation report of the agreement within five years of our accession. As I mentioned, the impacts cannot be disaggregated by individual chapters, and doing so through additional impact assessments would cost the taxpayer, be unnecessarily duplicative and not show the effects of the agreement as a whole. The CPTPP was of course conceived as a living agreement designed to evolve to maintain its high standards. Its text states that there should be a general review of the agreement periodically; the first general review is expected to begin shortly, in spring 2024. As I mentioned earlier, there is a UK consultation on this, and we will engage with each issue raised in the review in a way that seeks to promote and protect UK interests.

To be frank, the two specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman do not seem particularly close to the wording of the amendments. However, I have had a chance to look at his references to Professor Sanchez Graells. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already received correspondence on the points that he raised—I think he mentioned that—as part of the passage of the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023. That is a rarity: it was passed while I was not a Minister in the Department. That is a rare event, but I will look at it. The Government continue to disagree with Professor Graells, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the correspondence he has already received on the matter. However, if he thinks that anything arises from that correspondence and wishes to write to me, I will have a look at it.

Similarly, I feel that the passage of the regime on seeds, UPOV 91, is fairly deeply in the scope of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I will undertake to write to the Committee about UPOV 91 and the patent regime on seeds. None the less, my point remains that the impact assessments we have already done—the biennial monitoring report and the comprehensive evaluation report of the agreement—are still the right approach to working out and assessing the impact of CPTPP. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for those replies. I will reflect on the points he has made, and may return to these on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Review: Investor-State Dispute Settlement

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.” —(Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Dhesi]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. [Interruption.] I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West for his remarks from a sedentary position. Were he speaking to this new clause, I am sure he would do a much better job. As we delve deeper into the considerations of the CPTPP, our focus now shifts to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. We must pay close attention to the safeguarding of national sovereignty, public welfare and environmental integrity. We in the Labour party have listened to the voices of numerous stakeholders, including the Trades Union Congress, the Trade Justice Movement and Greenpeace, which all express concern at the impact of the ISDS mechanism, particularly highlighting its disproportionate impact on democratic governance and policy autonomy.

As hon. Members will know, the ISDS mechanisms allow private investors to sue Governments for alleged discriminatory practices. I wish to flag concerns about ISDS’s potential to challenge environmental regulations. A poignant example is the 2021 case of Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, which illustrates the tension between corporate interests and environmental conservation. Colombia’s efforts to protect the páramos—a crucial ecosystem supplying 70% of the nation’s water—were countered by Eco Oro with a substantial legal claim of $696 million in damages due to a mining ban. This case highlights the potential for ISDS mechanisms to be wielded against Government actions aimed at preserving the environment, thereby urging the UK to tread cautiously as we navigate the intricacies of international trade agreements like the CPTPP.

We are particularly wary of how these mechanisms might impede our nation’s progress towards meeting climate targets. Furthermore, the potential jeopardy ISDS poses to public services cannot be overstated. The TUC has raised concerns that the prospect of foreign investors suing over the nationalisation of services, or the introduction of new public health regulations threatens our capacity to govern in the public interest, potentially having dire consequences for essential services such as the NHS and education.

For example, the case of Veolia v. Egypt, which concluded in 2018 after six years of litigation, where Veolia sued over wage increase policies, underscores the risk of ISDS mechanisms being used to challenge policies aimed at improving public welfare, with legal proceedings that can last years and entail substantial financial costs for Governments. Although Veolia eventually lost that case, it is still the case that Governments lose even if they win, because the Egyptian Government had to spend six years defending the case and pay millions of dollars in arbitration and legal costs. Although the costs of that case have not been made public, studies from the OECD show that average costs are $8 million to $10 million, and they can be as high as $30 million. That case serves as a reminder of the potential for ISDS to prioritise profits over the wellbeing of citizens, making it imperative to reform those mechanisms to enhance transparency and fairness in the dispute resolution process.

Historical precedents starkly illustrate the contentious nature of ISDS mechanisms. The shadow Minister for international trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), proposed amendments, inspired by real world cases like Philip Morris’s challenge against Australia, that highlight the pressing need for stringent scrutiny and limitations on ISDS provisions to prevent corporate interests from unduly influencing national policy. Those instances demonstrate a pattern where ISDS is utilised to contest national policies and regulations, emphasising the need for enhanced parliamentary oversight and public consultation, as proposed in our amendments. Such cases vividly underscore the threat that ISDS poses to environmental policies and actions crucial for combating climate change and protecting biodiversity. Those examples highlight the pressing need for that scrutiny, which is why that enhanced parliamentary oversight is important.

I also want to delve into data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which indicates that disputes involving environmental regulations are on the rise, emphasising the vulnerability of environmental policies under ISDS. It is imperative to note that, between 1993 and 2020, UNCTAD reported a staggering 1,104 known ISDS cases globally, with a significant number of challenging environmental regulations. That necessitates implementing safeguards in the CPTPP Bill to prevent challenges to measures protecting biodiversity or reducing carbon emissions. That trend once again underscores the urgency of implementing safeguards within the CPTPP Bill to protect against ISDS overreach, ensuring that measures taken to protect biodiversity or reduce carbon emissions are not contested, thus preserving our commitments under international agreements, like the Paris climate agreement.

I also want to discuss public services at risk. A study by the European Federation of Public Service Unions highlights that ISDS mechanisms have been used to challenge public interest measures, such as environmental regulations, health and safety standards, showing a clear conflict with public service provision. The ability for foreign investors to sue over the nationalisation of services or the introduction of new regulations to protect public health poses a threat to our ability to govern in the public interest. That could have dire consequences for the NHS, education and other critical public services, restricting our ability to implement policies without the spectre of costly legal challenges.

None the less, it is also crucial to acknowledge the perspective that ISDS provisions, when applied judiciously, can offer a level of legal protection to investors against genuine cases of expropriation or unfair treatment by host states, thereby contributing to a stable investment environment. The challenge lies in ensuring that those mechanisms do not infringe upon the legitimate policy space of Governments to enact regulations in the public interest.

Considering the critical examination of the ISDS provisions within the CPTPP, it is essential to underscore that ISDS mechanisms can significantly impact the regulatory sovereignty of nations, allowing private corporations to challenge public policies and regulations designed to protect public health, the environment and welfare. I am sure the Minister is aware that we have had several debates over the last few years, and especially over the seven years that I have been in Parliament, around sovereignty and the need to protect national sovereignty, so I hope he will address these concerns.

Our proposed amendments, such as that to clause 2 for enhanced parliamentary oversight, and the requirement for public consultation on ISDS provisions, are informed by the analysis of cases like Veolia v. Egypt and Philip Morris v. Australia, which demonstrate the tangible risks ISDS poses to public welfare and environmental protection. Our amendment to clause 2 for enhanced parliamentary oversight proposes mandating parliamentary approval for regulations relating to ISDS mechanisms by resolution of each House of Parliament, reflecting our commitment to democratic oversight. This step ensures that the ISDS mechanism within the CPTPP undergoes thorough scrutiny, reflecting our dedication to maintaining the integrity of our legislative process.

With regard to public consultation requirements on ISDS provisions, in alignment with our principles of transparency and public engagement we propose adding a requirement for comprehensive public consultations specifically on the ISDS provisions within the CPTPP. This amendment ensures that the diverse viewpoints and concerns of our society, including those from trade unions, environmental groups and sectors potentially affected by our ISDS claims, are duly recognised and addressed.

In relation to safeguard amendments against ISDS overreach, inspired by the consolidated list of amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, the shadow Minister for Business and Trade—he has done a great deal of hard work on this—we advocate for safeguards within the CPTPP Bill to protect against the overreach of ISDS mechanisms. That includes stipulations that prevent ISDS claims from undermining the UK’s legislative autonomy in areas such as public health, environmental protection and labour rights, thereby preserving the UK’s regulatory autonomy and ensuring that ISDS mechanisms cannot be used to challenge legislative and regulatory actions taken in the public interest in our Parliament.

By proposing these focused amendments to the CPTPP Bill, we aim to address the legitimate concerns surrounding ISDS mechanisms and their potential implications for our country. These proposals are founded on our unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of fairness, environmental stewardship and social justice in our trade policy. This ensures that our trade agreements not only pursue economic objectives, but safeguard the broader interests of our society and the protection of our democratic processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I thank you, Dr Huq, and the hon. Member for Slough for his point of order. None the less, we have to be clear that ISDS can prevent arbitrary discrimination against foreign companies. In the case of CPTPP, that can mean the same for British companies operating in those 11 existing parties. I just say to the Opposition Front Benchers that if they want Labour to pose as a pro-business party, they should take great care while parroting the arguments of groups like—

[Gareth Thomas]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. Again I seek your advice. Have you had any indication as to whether the Minister will answer the question why Britain is not seeking to have ISDS provisions in the Canada FTA but is seeking to have them in the CPTPP?