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

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, we have a very nice tradition in this House of always warmly welcoming maiden speeches. We usually do it because we are a nice, polite House. In this case, we do it because we genuinely warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary to join us and we greatly admire the maiden speech he has just made. We genuinely do.

There is something wonderfully Alice in Wonderland and ironic about the fact that the noble Lord’s maiden speech is made in a debate on an implementing Bill that will implement a treaty that we have not yet seen; it has not been presented to us. We are going to debate the detail of a Bill that will put on the statute book the necessary changes, because it is assumed that we will agree that we should accede to the CPTPP. Of course, it is not an unrealistic assumption, because we in this House can do absolutely nothing to stop our acceding to the CPTPP—which is again nicely Alice in Wonderland.

Actually, I would not want to stop it—I think it is a very good thing that we are acceding to the CPTPP—but I do hope that the Foreign Secretary will find time to consider the paradox that we are stuck here on pre-Brexit arrangements for scrutinising and approving trade agreements even though, post Brexit, we no longer have as our trade negotiators the Christopher Soameses, the Leon Brittans, the Cathy Ashtons or the Peter Mandelsons. We no longer have the right, in the Council of Ministers, to give them a mandate; we no longer have a European Parliament scrutinising everything they do in a trade negotiation; and we no longer therefore have Select Committees in this House and the other place scrutinising very closely what our Ministers say in the Council of Ministers, with all of this done in public.

Since Brexit, trade policy has been a black box. Westminster is in the dark and Whitehall has taken back absolute control. It does not feel quite right to me. I do not suppose the Foreign Secretary will have the time, or possibly the inclination, to consider amending the CRaG Act 2010, but I hope that successor Foreign Secretaries will. The Alice in Wonderland arrangements are all very funny, but it is not right.

I also hope that the Foreign Secretary might consider why the International Agreements Committee of this House has so regularly called for the publication of a government trade strategy. Most grown-up Governments publish their trade strategies. I am a member of that committee, and we have repeatedly called for one. Not knowing what the Government are trying to achieve makes it quite tricky to work out, looking at each negotiation and its outcome, how far they have achieved their aim. I am not naive; I suspect that I have just described what some Trade Secretaries would regard as the best feature of our arrangement. Since it is not possible to say against any overall guideline whether they have done well, they can tell us that they have done jolly well.

As previous speakers have indicated, some Trade Secretaries have tended to do that a bit. As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, most of the agreements that Ms Truss presented, for example, were simple rollovers of the existing pre-Brexit arrangements, but all her geese were swans. Most of them were perfectly respectable geese, but they had to be presented as swans. I hope the Foreign Secretary will seek to persuade his Trade colleague, who I think is more open to the idea, to listen to the recommendation from this place that the Government should publish an overall trade strategy. But let me reassure him that the task of seeing this Bill through the House will not be onerous and that accession to the CPTPP is a swan—or at least a cygnet that might, over time, grow into a perfectly respectable swan.

I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said about what it is worth economically in the short term. The Government’s own impact assessment says that in the short term there will not be much economic benefit. Their economic impact assessment says it has taken full account of the likely dynamic—on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—and how the region is likely to grow. The impact assessment says that

“UK gross domestic product (GDP) could increase by the equivalent of £2.0 billion in the long run”

as a result of the CPTPP. It defines “in the long run” as by 2040. I agree with the impact assessment and those who say that all such long-range predictions have extremely wide margins of error, but it is important to remember that the Government thought that the central estimate of the likely financial benefit was £2 billion in the long term—in other words, about a third of 1% of GDP. That is not a lot. The reason is that we have existing free trade agreements with all CPTPP partners except Brunei and Malaysia.

But I believe that, over time, this agreement will deepen, widen and become genuinely significant, so I am glad that the Government have decided to get us on board. I hope that, during the course of our study of this Bill, the Government will set out for us how they see the future of the organisation. Do they believe, as I do—although I think the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would disagree with me—that, to be effective, it will need to acquire some sort of permanent secretariat, possibly even a site? Do the Government believe that it will need to consider enforcement mechanisms? I do.

What is the government view of CPTPP accession and of the six outstanding applications? These include the Chinese application that, if accepted, which in my view is very unlikely, would be transformative—in my view very undesirably. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, was right to call for transparency on this. We need to know what the Government think is the future of the organisation we are getting into. Of course, it would be a perfect subject to be covered in a trade strategy document, which could also perhaps explore the wider issue of the future of the multilateral rules-based system, and whether it has a future or whether the future is bilateral and plurilateral arrangements like CPTPP.

I am with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on this. I am a free trader and I believe that the best for free trade is the widest-possible global rules: simple rules, but as wide as possible. But there are two obvious problems that he and I have to face: first, American protectionism. I warmly agree with what he said. It was free trading Republicans under Robert Dole who got the United States into the WTO, but that breed seems to be extinct, and their successors have destroyed the WTO court. The second problem is China, now the world’s number one trading power. Together with the rest of the global South, it does not mind global rules, but it does not see why they should remain the rules we set 75 years ago, in the very different era of Bretton Woods.

It has a point; we have been very slow to update the structures we built. Why have seven of the 10 heads of the WTO been Europeans, like all 12 heads of the IMF, with all 14 heads of the World Bank coming from America? There is room for new thinking on effective internationalism and on the institutions that should underpin a rules-based trading system. There is a perfect task for an experienced new Foreign Secretary to consider. Meanwhile, let us work on accession to the CPTPP and welcome his arrival in this House.

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

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 25 and 30 and then touch even more briefly on Amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 30, which will shortly be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, calls for a parliamentary debate on a CPTPP impact assessment. This is really important, because the influence of this House is not in the big decisions we take but over the Government—although it is too late when they have already signed a treaty—and the House of Commons. Although we do not normally tell the House of Commons what to do—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, chose his words very carefully—in this circumstance it is really important.

In addition to the impact assessment, the International Agreements Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I sit on, will also write a report on the treaty. We can get that to influence the real decision-makers down the Corridor only if this amendment is agreed and we ensure that a debate happens there. The request for an impact assessment is a nice little segue into a debate on our report as well. By concentrating on the wider impact assessment, it also allows a wider range of issues to be considered, such as prices. Nobody ever talks about the impact of these agreements on prices. We hope that and other issues will be very good for consumers but we need to see that, so a debate will be important.

Amendment 25, which my noble friend Lord McNicol will speak to, requests an impact assessment on labour and ILO standards. This is key. We want this and any other FTA not just to maintain but, we hope, to bolster ILO standards—not just through paper adherence but enforcement. I think we all agree that trade is good for jobs, consumers, our exports and the economy, but that must not be at any price. It cannot undermine any ILO standards. Indeed, I hope it will enable us and others to be rather more observant of them.

Very briefly on Amendments 13 and 14, I strongly concur with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about the importance of increasing investment. As I will make a wider point, I declare that I am a leaseholder and am on the board of the ABI, but I bring to the Committee an issue of core importance to prospective overseas investors that I have read about in the financial and specialist press rather than know about through any personal connection. In a completely different part of government, there is an attempt, with leasehold reform, to make retrospective legislation to reduce ground rents to peppercorn rents. That is very attractive for lots of people, but there is a real clash with the desire to increase overseas investment via the CPTPP, because many overseas investors—to say nothing of our domestic pension schemes—are concerned about non-compensated loss of property rights or contracts if their ground rents are suddenly taken away from them retrospectively.

That retrospective nature could undermine the Government’s welcome attempts to get more international investment into the country, because the attractions are not just over trade agreements such as this but over all the other things that we know we are known and valued for: stability, certainty and the rule of law. That needs to go hand in hand if the objectives of this deal are to be taken into account.

That was a little off-piste, but I could not resist it. My real point is that we need to know far more at a more granular level and after the event about what this agreement has produced. That needs to be debated in this House and elsewhere so that the influence of, in particular, my colleagues and the specialists we have heard from, who put so much into this, can be heard at the other end of the building.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who was an extremely effective chairman of the International Agreements Committee. I have only two points.

First, in response to overwhelming demand across the Committee, I have agreed to repeat the extraordinarily boring technical point I made in our first day in Committee about deadlines. The majority of the amendments in this group set deadlines that hang on the passing of the Act. I respectfully suggest that what matters for reports is the date on which our accession takes effect. That might be in the course of next year—I hope it will be—but that is not certain. Some of these amendments would call for reports almost certainly before we have actually acceded. Accession takes place when the last ratification is received by the depositary power, so the right peg to hang it on is not the passing of the Act, which permits us to ratify, nor our ratification, but the 12th ratification, which allows us in. I know that these are mostly probing amendments, but I suggest to their drafters that it might be a good idea to use the peg of our actual accession rather than the passage of the Bill. I exempt some of the amendments in this group; this is only for the ones that hang on performance and how it is working out, because it would be well for us to be in before we require the Government to report on how being in is working out.

Secondly, I am a little concerned about Amendment 32— the accession amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Foster of Bath. It would require the Secretary of State to produce

“an impact assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom of the accession of countries that have submitted a request … to accede to the CPTPP within the last five years”.

That would include us; it would be jolly useful to have an impact assessment for us, but I do not think that is the purpose of the amendment. The deadline is

“within three months of the passing of this Act”,

which is the wrong deadline, for the reason I gave.

However, my point is more substantive than that. Apart from us, there are six countries whose applications to join the CPTPP have been received in the last five years: Ecuador, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Ukraine, China and Taiwan. The rules of the game, of course, are that consensus is required before a negotiation starts with any applicant country and consensus is required before a negotiation is closed, completed, and then the ratification process starts. It is also the case—not so much in our case but in previous cases—that there have been a lot of side letters and deals done in the margins of the main accession negotiation.

It is misleading to call for an impact assessment of what would be the impact of the outcome of any of these six negotiations. One cannot do that now. A very good moment for dialogue with the Government would be when CPTPP was considering whether to open negotiations. It seems that three months after the passing of the Act, one simply does not know. I add, on a personal basis, that I do not think that six negotiations will start in the foreseeable future. The applications of three of these countries pose serious political problems. In one case, there will be an enormous change to the nature of the CPTPP if the accession took place—a change that I think would be undesirable and, I believe, a majority of members think would be undesirable. There are, however, two other cases where considerable political problems arise.

Setting early deadlines and calling for the Government to go public with their analysis, which would in fact present the Government’s negotiating position, would be unwise. I do not think that we should ask our Government to go on the record in advance about a hypothetical negotiation which, in my view, in three of the six cases is unlikely to start in the foreseeable future. The Government would not be wise to act on that requirement, so I hope that they will resist that requirement—or, rather, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will have second thoughts about Amendment 32.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I understand why this amendment was put forward and presented so well by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, but I do not support it. I do not think it necessary or desirable.

There are three politically controversial applications to join the CPTPP. The Chinese application is, of course, much the most controversial. If I were asked to predict what will happen, I would predict that nothing will happen, and that the Chinese application and, sadly, the Taiwanese application will remain in the “too difficult” tray for a very long time. Unanimity among existing members is required both to open a negotiation and to end a negotiation by agreeing to accession, and that is not foreseeable under present circumstances. The amendment is unnecessary because the condition that it sets—the peg for the report it calls for, which is a decision on Chinese accession—is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

It is also undesirable because, in general, there is quite a lot to be said for not requiring Governments to come clean on hypothetical questions. I admit that I used to work in government and, to put it in a pejorative way, it might be desirable to hide behind “There is no consensus”, rather than revealing which side one was actually on. That is conceivable and I do not think it is desirable.

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

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 34 is in my name. I first have to repeat what I discover is true of quite a few participants in today’s debate: I did not speak at Second Reading. I am afraid my excuse is not quite as good as those of some Members, as I was on holiday, so I ask noble Lords to forgive me for that. It was arranged some time before.

I understand that it is not in order to give a Second Reading speech and I do not intend to do so. However, I will say that I am in favour of free trade—of ever loosening-up trade—and I recognise the remarks that the Minister made at Second Reading and has repeated in today’s discussions. I could chase that issue but I will resist the temptation, except to say that free trade comes with conditions. The “free” aspect has limits, which have regard to wider policies, most obviously climate change but there is also food safety—the whole range. They are part of the process of agreeing free trade, and the objective of free trade should not supersede those other objectives. They have to work together; we have to find a balance between them and I accept that. In addition, I point out that this is an advance in free trade. The biggest blow that we have had to widening free trade over the last 10 years is of course, Brexit—I will leave that one there.

My amendment introduces some requirements on the Secretary of State. On reflection, it does not fit all that well with the first amendment in this group. However, we are where we are, and the common theme is placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to report. This is one of the shortcomings of the Bill. It is of course only narrowly focused on the technical aspects that require changes in domestic legislation, the treaty having been decided and promulgated on the royal prerogative, hence the involvement of Parliament in drawing up what is, effectively, a form of legislation has been limited. We have two committees which look at these sorts of issues, and I understand that we are still waiting to hear their views on the overall structure; here we are just looking at these technical aspects. Having said that, it is reasonable to introduce these obligations on the Secretary of State. They are broadly self-explanatory; it does not need me to explain to your Lordships the importance of these requirements of policy that have to fit with freer trade.

I will say just a bit more about proposed new subsection (1)(b), on the importance of the precautionary principle. As ever, it is a question of balance. You can carry the precautionary principle too far but it comes into this discussion. My understanding is that the CPTPP preferences the science-based approach to regulation over and above the precautionary principle in what is acceptable in limitations. The science-based approach requires parties to demonstrate a scientific basis for regulation, which could of course be a problem where there is no such basis, there are no means to develop it, or scientific papers have been published by an industry which has a vested interest in avoiding the difficult questions of supporting a particular outcome. Therefore, I stress that it is important that we understand the extent to which the precautionary principle has been superseded by vested interests in particular approaches. This is not a new principle; it is there in the Environment Act 2021. I should like the Minister to say in reply that he understands that issue, and perhaps it could be discussed in more detail prior to Report.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I will say a brief word on Amendment 8A. Contrary to the habit of a lifetime, I played by the rules and did speak at Second Reading. I made clear that I warmly welcome our accession to the CPTPP and that I have no difficulty with the main points in this Bill.

On Amendment 8A, I am sympathetic, but I think that one needs to think quite hard about the timing. Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Government would be required to submit reports on two important areas of performance: how the—very welcome—rules of origin provisions are working out, and how respect for geographical indications is being honoured.

I do not know when our accession will take effect—none of us does—because it will depend on who is last to ratify our accession. It is conceivable that it might take all of 12 months or more than 12 months before this happens. To say that the report will be required within 12 months of our passing the Act is slightly odd. If the report is going to be useful, it needs to take account of what has actually gone on—the experience—with regard to how the rules of origin are being respected and how self-certification of rules of origin is working out.

Although I support the principle of the report—because these are both extremely important provisions within the CPTPP, and a report to see how they are working out seems a good idea—I really do not think that it is a good idea to ask the Government to do so within 12 months of the passing of the Act.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I am afraid that I was not present for the Second Reading debate—I was with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who spoke earlier on, as the other half of the reception committee that welcomed the President of the Republic of Korea. I hope that we played our small part in deepening the friendship and relationship between this country and the wonderful, vibrant democracy of the Republic of Korea, with which I hope we will deepen our trade relations as the years go by.

I also have an amendment for consideration later, which will probably be reached on our second day in Committee. It also has within it a reporting mechanism. I agree with my noble friend that 12 months may not be the right time, but the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, are right to have both articulated the need for Parliament to have reports laid before it. That is the principle, but how one does that, the mechanisms that we use and the timeframes we place on it are surely open to discussion. The Government should not quail at the idea of there being time for Parliament to look back at what has happened to something such as the CPTPP. I must say that I also welcome the CPTPP; I strongly believe that the Government have done the right thing in promoting this opportunity for the United Kingdom. I have no issues whatever with that; my issues would come later about some of the partners we might have in the future. We will discuss that later on.

This idea that Parliament should discuss the nature of trade is not new. With the help of the House of Lords Library, I was looking at the debates that took place in 1857 when the great champion of free trade, Richard Cobden, denounced the opium trade in a three-day debate in which two relatively young MPs—William Ewart Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli—joined forces across the political divide to support him, just as Cobden had stood with William Wilberforce in denouncing the trade in human beings. He was against the slave trade. There were red lines not to be crossed.