PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) - 20 February 2024 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

As members of this Committee, we have been lucky enough to have had the Business and Trade Committee publish its report on the UK’s accession to CPTPP. In that, one of the explicit recommendations—it would be good to hear from the Minister whether he will accept it—is that the Government should

“provide a revised impact assessment, setting out its current expectations of the gains from CPTPP”.

The report goes on to say that the Department should

“explain what steps it is going to take to help ensure that UK business exploits the treaty to the full.”

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Secretary of State was trying to run away from the estimates of the little, albeit important none the less, benefits that might accrue from CPTPP, so why should we not have that revised impact assessment now if Ministers think that it will lead to a huge increase in benefits for the UK?

This is probably one of those rare occasions when we are actually fortunate to have the hon. Member for Totnes on the Committee with us, because he is a member of the Business and Trade Committee, which brought out the report this week. As I understand it, he was one of those who supported the idea that the Government should provide a revised impact assessment. One can only hope that he will have the courage of his convictions to speak in this stand part debate to underline why he thinks that the Government should provide the revised impact assessment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough will join me in encouraging him to have the courage of his convictions and speak.

My hon. Friend is setting out nicely the series of concerns that we in the Opposition have, which it would be good to hear the Minister address when he winds up the debate. One of the particular questions related to ISDS, which it would be good to hear the Minister deal with early in his response, is why Ministers, on the one hand, have supported ISDS staying in the CPTPP treaty, but were actively trying to have it excluded from the bilateral free trade agreement with Canada, before those negotiations were collapsed by the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way—again; it is early in the morning. One of the concerns, surely, about the Government’s insistence that ISDS should stay part of the CPTPP treaty that we are acceding to, is the inconsistency with the approach taken to ISDS by other parts of Government, such as by Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The Minister will remember his experience there and the energy charter treaty in particular. Britain has paused its use of the energy charter treaty, because of widespread concerns internationally about the use of ISDS provisions. As I understand it, Ministers have also acknowledged the risk of ISDS to the Paris agreement objectives. That therefore begs the question posed by my hon. Friend even more so: why are Ministers so adamant that we as a country should support ISDS—

As my hon. Friend was talking about deforestation, I was almost excited to see the hon. Member for Totnes leap to his feet: in the Select Committee report, which I understand the hon. Gentleman fully supports, is a significant reference to deforestation linked to palm oil, as my hon. Friend was rightly pointing out. Professor Bartels, the chair of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, noted that one reason why it appears that a high proportion of current UK imports of palm oil from Malaysia meet a voluntary standard higher than the current Malaysian national standard may be the impact of the EU’s deforestation regulations, which are much tougher than the UK’s certification requirements.

I gently suggest that the Select Committee, and perhaps Professor Bartels, had a nagging concern that the provisions of CPTPP may actually lead, in the long run, to more deforestation than we might as a country be comfortable with.

I am grateful to you, Mr Davies, for calling me, and for the opportunity to serve again under your chairmanship. I have noted your advice—or instruction —not to go into the detail of the amendments, but I do wish to ask a number of questions of the Minister to help to guide the points that I will make on some of those measures further down the selection list.

One concern raised on Second Reading was about the collapse of the bilateral talks with Canada. That specific issue is perhaps not directly germane to this Bill, but it raises the question of whether relations with the Canadians have been affected by the collapse of those talks such that Canada may not want to ratify Britain’s accession to CPTPP. It would be good to hear from the Minister how he sees the progress among other countries of accepting that accession. I say in passing that we have still not had a clear explanation of the timing of the decision by the Secretary of State to collapse talks with Canada, given that we are still some two months away from the deadline to negotiate a rollover of the EU cumulation rules of origin that were so important for British manufacturing, notably cars.

Also on Second Reading, we heard the Secretary of State querying her own Department’s figures about the 0.08% lift to economic growth after 10 years, which was downgraded to just 0.04% by the Office for Budget Responsibility. I take the opportunity again to underline the recommendation of the Business and Trade Committee in its report this week for the Department to bring out a revised impact assessment. It also called for an urgent debate on the benefits—or not—of acceding to CPTPP. If Ministers were willing to support such a debate, it would be good to have that impact assessment brought out urgently. As I said, I hope that the hon. Member for Totnes, who is a member of the Committee, does not resile from those recommendations.

Given that, sadly, our country is now in recession after mismanagement by the Conservative party, and given that exports are set to rise by just 0.1% on average over the next three years, any increase in the modest gains that CPTPP is currently set to offer will be very welcome. However, as part of the discussion about our accession to CPTPP, I want to take the Minister back to debates we had some three years ago on the Trade Act 2021, when he was adamant that there should be no improvement in the scrutiny processes available for the discussion of trade treaties. He will be aware of the concerns raised by a series of organisations—from trade unions all the way through to the slightly less left-wing, one would suggest, noble Lord Frost—about the lack of scrutiny for trade treaties, notably CPTPP. It would be good to hear how the Minister thinks scrutiny of the impact of CPTPP could be improved even a little.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that we will get on to some of the concerns that the TUC has raised about labour standards, which I think would be in order during a later debate on clause 3. It would be good to hear whether the Minister shares any of the concerns of the TUC, which has often struggled somewhat to get a hearing with Ministers. I believe that the situation has improved a little recently, but it was certainly pretty grim when the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) was Secretary of State for International Trade.

In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough rightly drew attention to concerns about ISDS, and I will touch on those a little. Concerns were also raised about issues to do with performers’ rights. I accept that there is an opportunity to go into detail about some of those concerns during debates on clause 5, but I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions, which I hope will inform better the debate on performers’ rights in clause 5.

Concerns were raised on Second Reading about environmental and animal welfare issues. Again, there will be an opportunity to talk about some of those a little later. One issue that there might not be such a good opportunity to discuss later, which I gently suggest is appropriate for this clause 1 stand part debate, is the question of future membership of CPTPP. One of my excellent staff discovered an article that the Minister wrote on 24 November 2022, where he hints at the United States rejoining CPTPP. That could have huge implications for the use of ISDS and animal welfare and environmental concerns, and would probably make a nonsense of the current impact assessment, so that is all the more reason for a revised impact assessment to be made.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to raise those concerns. I hope to touch on them in this clause 1 stand part debate, but I do not want to upset the Chair by delving into too much detail. But the RSPCA has raised concerns about the lack of explicit language on animal welfare in CPTPP. It has drawn the Committee’s attention to that and has raised a series of concerns around eggs, pig meat, chickens, animal health and genetically-engineered products. Will the Minister respond to the concerns of the RSPCA, which is in order in these debates? It would be good to hear the Minister respond to the concerns of an organisation as reputable as the RSPCA.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I explored whether there was any way to table an amendment that might allow us to probe the Minister about not just China but any new country acceding to CPTPP. Unfortunately, it did not appear to be appropriate or in order to table such an amendment in Committee, but I hope to revisit the issue on Report—indeed, I understand that it was discussed on Report in the Lords.

I hear the Chair’s sage advice; I think my hon. Friend the Member for Slough used that term. I will attempt to pick up all my concerns about the Minister’s letter and about performers’ rights more generally during a later debate.

I will briefly touch on ISDS, which my hon. Friend referred to in some detail. The Minister has previously claimed that Britain has never lost an ISDS case and that that explains the determination of Ministers to keep ISDS within the CPTPP. My understanding is that that is not entirely accurate and that we lost a case involving Eurotunnel some years ago and had to pay out significant costs. It would be good to have clarity from the Minister about that when he winds up on this clause, to help to inform our later debates around ISDS. It would also be useful to hear whether Britain has ever been threatened with an ISDS claim by other organisations—again, that would help us understand just how much of a threat ISDS being within the CPTTP is at the moment.

The concern is that Britain is, in general, a net exporter of capital at the moment, which is perhaps why we have not been hit with so many ISDS claims as a series of other countries have been. Obviously, however, with Canada a significant player in the CPTTP, and with the US, as the Minister said, potentially rejoining the CPTTP, that would not necessarily be the case. The question is this: would we not be more vulnerable in those circumstances? I gently suggest that that is a material concern, so it would be useful to hear at this stage from the Minister about it before we address the other concerns later. On that note, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Will the Minister give way?

First, I thank the Minister for describing me as a frequent rebel. I am hugely grateful to him for that characterisation: it will appear on my election leaflets for years to come. He has raised my vote on CETA many times, and I suspect he will do so many times in future; I do hope so. I gently make the point that he promised us he would help to negotiate a better deal with Canada, but he has not done so. In fact, we have worse terms of trade with Canada than when we were in the EU .

I well understand the Minister wanting to reach for a piece of Labour legislation for comfort in the difficult circumstances of this particular Bill. I gently point out to him, however, that we have now left the European Union, which the CRaG process, when put into legislation, assumed we would continue to be a part of. I therefore gently suggest that we need to update the scrutiny processes. The Minister appears to be one of the last people on the Government Benches who is opposed to improving parliamentary scrutiny. With an election coming, given that he might be sitting on the Opposition Benches—if he survives—he should appreciate better scrutiny arrangements. Perhaps he is willing to seek the advice of the hon. Member for Totnes on how scrutiny arrangements might be improved.

On the Eurotunnel question, the Minister might like to check with Lord Johnson, because he seemed to know a little bit more about the case than the Minister appears to. Perhaps when the Minister goes back to his Department he might seek out his noble Friend and get some background from him.

The problem with ISDS, particularly in the Eurotunnel case, is that War on Want had to table a freedom of information request to find out what had happened. That level of secrecy is one of the problems with ISDS. As the Minister has access to those records, it would be useful if he published or made clear what happened in that case. That would help us, as a country, to learn how we might avoid such claims in future.

On a point of order, Mr Davies. I gently ask whether you might draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 5, which is specifically about ISDS.

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out from “subject to” to the end of the subsection and insert

“approval by resolution of each House of Parliament”.

Clause 2 is about the treatment of conformity assessment bodies, and who certificates or provides assurance that products meet necessary regulatory requirements. Testing, certification and inspection are all conformity assessment procedures, usually carried out by third-party organisations called conformity assessment bodies. At the moment, our legislation requires there to be based in Great Britain, or in a country with whom the UK has a mutual recognition agreement, conformity assessment bodies that carry out those processes for goods and services sold in the UK. Under article 8.6 of the CPTPP treaty, conformity assessment bodies established in the territories of CPTPP parties are to be treated no less favourably than conformity assessment bodies located domestically.

The Opposition accept that the UK will have to amend its legislation to allow conformity assessment bodies established in other CPTPP countries to apply for approval and accreditation for the Great Britain market. That is clearly not the case in Northern Ireland, where, under the Windsor framework, EU rules around conformity assessment bodies still apply. It would be good to hear from the Minister how the approval and accreditation process for conformity assessment bodies established, for example, in Canada, Malaysia, Japan or Brunei for the British market might work in practice.

Many conformity assessment bodies are very well established, particularly those in the UK. None the less, I gently suggest that there is a need for better consultation about future approval of conformity assessment bodies that might operate in other CPTPP countries, but want to operate within our markets. There is also a need for a stronger role for Parliament in general, specifically around conformity assessment of new technologies such as artificial intelligence.

Amendment 1 would make the negative procedure a positive one, to make a debate more likely. Amendment 2 would require more consultation with Scottish and Welsh Ministers, with Northern Ireland and with representatives of the English regions, before regulations are introduced. Let me explain why the amendments could usefully be made to the Bill; I will give an example from another regime that demonstrates why conformity assessment bodies are likely to be needed for artificial intelligence and why, therefore, my amendments on such bodies from CPTPP countries being registered here in the UK are appropriate.

Current EU rules appear to require conformity assessments for high-risk artificial intelligence systems that cover machinery, radio equipment, toys, civil aviation, medical devices, cars, railway applications and appliances burning gaseous earth fuels. Surely we would want to know that conformity assessment bodies approving high-risk artificial intelligence systems know what they are doing when they operate in the UK. To ensure that they do—certainly until the technology is well established and its risks and benefits are well understood—there ought to be wide consultation and significant parliamentary debate whenever a new artificial intelligence conformity assessment body seeks accreditation in the UK, given the potential security issues around artificial intelligence. That seems even more important given the potential for new applicant countries to join the CPTPP. As I understand it, China is well advanced in artificial intelligence development, as is the US. Can the Minister set out what discussions Ministers have had about the possibility of new artificial intelligence conformity assessment bodies emerging from other CPTPP countries wanting accreditation to operate in Great Britain?

I certainly would not want to hold back the development of artificial intelligence in any way, given its exciting potential to transform our country and others for the better. It enables the simulation of human-like intelligence to make decisions, solve problems and analyse information, among other things. It allows various applications such as voice recognition, image creation and autonomous vehicles. As I hope I have hinted at, it has the potential to revolutionise industries from healthcare to finance by automating tasks, imparting efficiency and enabling all sorts of new capabilities. It is quite clear that more and more businesses are looking at artificial intelligence options to see whether there is potential for their operations to improve their products and services and help with cost reduction, revenue growth and so on.

At the moment, artificial intelligence regulation is relatively limited, but there is an active and growing debate about how and when to regulate artificial intelligence and how to go about that process. There are active debates in the EU and China, as I hinted at, as well as in Canada and Brazil, along with the other example I gave earlier in the US. In the EU, for example, conformity assessments of AI products or services are defined as the process of verifying and/or demonstrating that a high-risk system complies with certain requirements, such as good risk management, good data governance, good technical documentation, proper human oversight, accuracy, robustness, good cyber-security and good record keeping. CPTPP evolves, so it is surely possible that artificial intelligence conformity assessment bodies will be established in other CPTPP member states, and will want approval and accreditation to operate in our markets.

Lawyers are beginning to look at these issues in detail. For example, one anticipated that the focus will be on testing such systems for bias and discriminatory or disparate impacts. The conformity assessments might in some cases just mean an internal assessment, but in other cases might require an assessment conducted by an independent third party, which would then issue a certificate to confirm the artificial intelligence system’s compliance. In short, that third party would be a conformity assessment body.

As artificial intelligence is such a new and innovative product or service, the way in which particularly high- risk forms of artificial intelligence are regulated may vary from one country to the next. Therefore, the way that conformity assessment bodies operate—what they expect of artificial intelligence firms—may differ widely too. There is surely a more active role for Parliament than the Bill currently envisages to consider directly whether each artificial intelligence conformity assessment body meets the standards that we and our constituents would expect.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I am sure that in the years to come there will be a considerable amount of debate in Parliament on both the potential for artificial intelligence, and where and when regulation of AI is required. To be fair to the Minister, the negative resolution process currently in the Bill does give Parliament some role, but I think a more active role for Parliament is required, particularly as this exciting and new—but potentially risky in some circumstances—technology is developed.

Given the important role that conformity assessment bodies for other products and services play in keeping us safe, conformity assessment bodies for artificial intelligence are likely to have a very important role in the future. We need to ensure that the way in which CPTPP is affected by artificial intelligence, in terms of its impact on the UK, is fit for purpose going forward. I know that the Minister is an enthusiast for not having much scrutiny of trade treaties, so there are likely to be relatively few opportunities to return to this CPTPP legislation and the conformity assessment bodies section within. Let us take the opportunity in this Committee to look to the future and recognise both the benefits and the risks of artificial intelligence. Let us also recognise that one way to ensure additional safety is by ensuring more parliamentary scrutiny of new conformity assessment bodies from CPTPP member countries that might operate here in the UK.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. It is striking that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government’s submissions on CPTPP raised concerns about scrutiny and consultation. For example, the Scottish Government’s written evidence noted

“the continued lack of data disaggregation for Scotland”

in the Government’s assessment of the benefits of CPTPP. They noted that

“an estimate of long-run changes to Scotland’s Gross-Value Added was provided,”

but that

“specific impacts according to sector, region and protected group within Scotland were not included in the assessments and so potentially significant impacts could have been missed.”

I would not want to suggest that our amendments will solve all those problems, but if they begin to embed better consultation with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, Northern Ireland and the English regions even a little bit, then I gently suggest that that can only be to the good.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and the experience of working in the Welsh Government that she brings to our considerations. It is striking that the Welsh Government raised a series of concerns, which they felt the Government had not addressed properly. For example, they noted that consultation with the Government had been mixed; at various times, it had been quite poor and had got better. In the last few weeks, before accession was announced, it had deteriorated again. I suspect that is about Ministers not wanting to hear different points of view and challenges to their ideological standpoint. For the benefit of the country, we need to ensure that we move forward together. Surely we are stronger together if we have better consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

I am grateful to the Minister for his characteristically bombastic assessment of our amendments. I also enjoyed the intervention from the hon. Member for Totnes. I think the gist of his remarks was that we have come a long way on scrutiny. I recognise that he has come a long way back into the Government fold, but I am not sure that we have come a long way on scrutiny of trade agreements. Perhaps he was still a little bit traumatised by a previous Secretary of State failing to turn up to a Select Committee to answer questions on eight occasions, and therefore grateful that the current Secretary of State did actually manage to turn up to answer questions on trade. While he might think that we have come a long way on scrutiny of trade agreements, the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs does not. I was struck by the lack of any reference to the Government’s response to that Committee in his comments.

Let me be clear again at the outset: we support accession to the CPTPP. However, it is our role as a responsible Opposition to raise the concerns of all sorts of stakeholders and to require those representing the Executive and the Treasury Bench to respond to those concerns. If the scrutiny arrangements for trade treaties were better, Opposition Members would perhaps have slightly less work to do to raise all the concerns.

I am afraid that it is rather characteristic of the tired Government we have that they are not always particularly interested in addressing seriously the concerns of organisations with such a long and cross-party track record as the RSPCA.

I would never dare to try to bait any Member of this House. I gently say to the hon. Member for Totnes that the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s report is an example of how scrutiny arrangements could improve. If he tracks back to when the report was published by the Trade and Agriculture Commission, he will be aware that it was published after Second Reading in the House of Lords. Again, I am gently suggesting that we still have some way to go to get scrutiny arrangements much better than they are. I hope to come on to some of the specific concerns and issues that the Trade and Agriculture Commission raised in debates on other amendments.

I am sure that the Minister, if he tracks back to the debates that he and I had during the passage of, I think, the 2021 Trade Bill, will remember that the Opposition pressed for better consultation with Scottish and Welsh Ministers, with Northern Ireland, and with representatives of the English regions. I gently say to him that he might wish to start a whole series of scare stories running, which has been his wont in various guises, I have noticed, down the years, but I do not think it is beyond the wit of Government to speak to local representatives in the English regions in a way that is not bureaucratic but which ensures that all the views across our great country are heard.

Lastly, on the Minister’s point about the apparently wonderful meetings that he has with the devolved Administrations, I gently draw his attention to the ministerial foreword to the Welsh Government’s comments on CPTPP accession. Vaughan Gething, Minister for Economy, said:

“The engagement with UK government has varied throughout the accession process. Whilst there was a lack of engagement at the beginning of the process,”

engagement did begin to “improve over time”. However, he says at the end of the foreword:

“However, the engagement in the period between the announcement of the agreement in principle through to signature was less positive, particularly when it came to discussions around the UK government analysis on the impact of the deal.”

The Scottish Government echoed some of those concerns in their remarks. Therefore it is clear that we could improve the scrutiny process for trade deals.

I would like to be convinced by the Minister’s response. Sadly, I am not, so I therefore seek your permission, Mr Davies, to divide the Committee on both amendment 1 and on amendment 2.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

My hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech. One of the environmental concerns that has been raised with me and others on the Committee by a whole series of green groups is around the use of the investor-state dispute settlement. Thus far, the Minister has ducked answering questions around ISDS. One hopes that in responding to my hon. Friend he might take the opportunity to explain why Ministers are so supportive of ISDS in this context, given the damage it could potentially do in setting back our climate change aspirations under the Paris agreement, and why they were so determined to try and stop ISDS being included in the bilateral free trade agreement with Canada.

Does my hon. Friend remember that once upon a time, one of the Prime Ministers not so long ago—I think his name was Boris Johnson—backed the idea that we should buy British? However, we have not heard anything recently about that concept. Certainly, the approach in the CPTPP—the lack of an enforceable labour standards provision, for example—suggests that Ministers have given up on the noble ambition of encouraging state bodies to buy British.

My hon. Friend is surely right to raise the concerns of the automotive sector. In particular, Ministers have failed to protect it from the loss of EU cumulation rights and rules of origin in access to Canada from 1 April. That potentially puts at risk some of the £750 million market for British cars, such has been the failure of the Secretary of State and the Minister present.