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

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Thursday 7th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene at a late stage on this amendment. I, too, was unable to participate at Second Reading because I could not be there for the whole debate, which I understand the rules, quite rightly, insist on. I apologise for not being able to participate then.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, seems to have a certain similarity to a later amendment in my name, Amendment 27. I have already spoken to my noble friend the Minister informally—I hesitate to say “casually”—and alerted him to the background to that amendment, to which I shall speak when the time comes. Can my noble friend help me by telling me what the relevant conformity standards body is for food and agricultural imports? He will be familiar, I am sure, with the report from the Food Standards Agency in England and the Food Standards Scotland, to which I shall refer in more detail when I speak briefly to my amendment.

I want to congratulate the Government on something that I have been asking for for some 10 years. I understand that they have appointed a larger number of agricultural attachés. The original one was appointed in Beijing by my right honourable friend Liz Truss when she was the Secretary of State for agriculture. If attachés can be placed in countries such as those referred to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, including Japan and others, under this agreement, it will be an enormous boost. I applaud that. If my noble friend the Minister cannot answer today, could he provide the Committee with details on what part of the cost the farming and food sector would have to pay and which part the Government may pick up, because it would be an enormous investment?

As I said, I would be interested to know also which conformity standards body would be relevant to food and agricultural products, but I shall keep my main thoughts for when I speak to my own amendment in more detail.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

I greet noble Lords who have been kind enough to come back for another wonderful discussion on the merits and benefits of free trade that will be visited upon our nation thanks to the vision of this Government in seeking to apply to and being successfully admitted, we hope, to the CPTPP. I am grateful to noble Lords for continuing their discussions, particularly those who have tabled amendments, and for the interlocution that we have had up until now, which has allowed us to have a good debate. I hope that they are well aware that I am available to them continuously to make sure that we draft the right legislation and profit from these free trade agreements.

I shall take the amendments one at a time if I may, though in this instance I think they are quite well grouped. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, well covered the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. There is no derogation of standards. This is not about standards; it is quite a helpful and straightforward process of authorising conformity assessment bodies to perform a function which, in many instances, they may already be doing—there may be mutual recognition in some areas and there may be other standards being undertaken or tested for. It simply allows the Secretary of State to authorise CABs to approve the activities of a CAB in a CPTPP country. Very importantly—we forget this, because often we look only one way in these agreements—CABs in CPTPP countries can authorise activities in the United Kingdom so that we can export more efficiently. It is of enormous assistance to industry, without question.

I have just been told the answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s question: UKAS is the conformity assessment body for agricultural standards. That answer came through just at the right time, but, as always, I am happy to write to noble Lords if I do not have the specific information. On CABs, the statutory instruments or secondary legislation that will come from this will cover a whole range of specialist and manufactured goods.

I feel I have been brief, but I believe everything has been covered in the discussion, unless I have missed anything. This is not about regulations, changing standards or anything like that; it is about a straightforward process where conformity assessment bodies can be authorised to follow whatever standards the domestic CABs wish them to follow in any CPTPP country. This strikes me as eminently sensible, and we very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would be comfortable with withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to Members who took part in this short debate. I like the Minister, and his enthusiasm for the 0.08% bounty to our economy from this Government’s vision is infectious. But we want businesses to take the opportunities from this.

I have a couple of points that the Minister might want to write to us about. If he will forgive me, the question I neglected to ask in moving the amendment is a concern that still plays slightly on my mind. If the United Kingdom Accreditation Service is now approving those within CPTPP countries, will those accreditation bodies be sufficiently aware of the Windsor agreement and the internal market of the UK? As the Minister knows, there is not just the UK certification badge on goods; if it is to do with the Northern Ireland market, there is also the UKNI certification process. This is complicated—we have debated it long and hard—and it will be a task for our accreditation service to judge whether the bodies within CPTPP countries are sufficiently qualified to understand our market and entering goods into all parts of the UK market, not just GB.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, rightly said, there is currently a workaround for this because of the CE markings. From my point of view, it would be eminently sensible if we just kept that going on in perpetuity. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, may have issues with that, because it would mean that we would have to maintain EU standards in perpetuity too—so there would perhaps be consequences to that. In the absence of mutual recognition agreements, we will probably have to keep an eye on this. I am aware that there are some MRAs within and between CPTPP countries, and whether we wish to take the next step forward with those countries is an interesting issue. I am certainly very open-minded about that, because it makes eminent sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated.

Fundamentally, if we are to approve other bodies, it would be helpful to know, through a report, which bodies have been approved, which have not and why. If they are not able to certify goods properly within the categories that are not self-certifiable under the WTO, there will still be that lingering doubt that goods will be entering into the UK market without the proper process. If there is a reason why our accreditation bodies have not approved them, there is a reason why those goods should not necessarily enter into the UK market.

I hear what the Minister said. Can he give an indication about whether he will write to me on Northern Ireland? He is nodding from a sedentary position, but is he willing to intervene?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I will do that and, on the other point, clarify where I think there may be a misunderstanding about the conformity assessment bodies and our current imports. Do not forget that we already import a great deal from CPTPP countries without this arrangement in place; this just facilitates the effectiveness of the CABs internationally and vice versa. I hope we can clarify that—I can write to Members to do so.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for that—as we know, there are currently imports under both the WTO approach and the CE markings, so, if this is moving away from that, a little understanding is needed. On Northern Ireland in particular, I am grateful that the Minister said he would write. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, there is very little to add to the detailed probing question—and answers—from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

My Lords, it is a constant pleasure to debate with such intellectual firepowers as the noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lord Lansley. It is a joy to learn new things, every day, about the opportunities and benefits of free trade, particularly the CPTPP treaty itself.

However, in this instance, the Government are not keen to accept the amendment, for the simple reason that this strikes me as an absolutely eminent clarification of the procurement relationship between a UK procurer covered by the CPTPP legislation and the international procurer who would not be covered by it. It clarifies the point that, if we are in a minority funding position, we have to be in a majority funding position in order to qualify under our own procurement legislation.

Therefore, this does something very sensible: it confirms that point. I am happy to clarify this further with the noble Lord outside this room, but it would be difficult for procuring agents in the UK who were not in control of the funding process to conform to the CPTPP procurement funding processes or our own national processes. That is why this is clarified. Otherwise, if you have a minority position, you do not have control over it—if you are putting in only a small amount of capital, it makes sense for the international body to make the procurement decisions.

Maybe I have missed something, but this strikes me as quite straightforward. I felt that, of all the amendments placed today, what we were doing here seemed to make things easier and clearer, rather than more opaque.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I intervene just to pre-empt my subsequent remarks. We are in Committee and may not need to return to this on Report, but it would be jolly useful to run through some case studies to examine how this works. My noble friend might help here, but this relates to whether it is exempted from covered procurement under UK procurement law. That may mean that there is less of a problem, but there is none the less a risk that these are procurements that may happen in the United Kingdom—Pergau dam buying consultant engineering services, for example. We might take that and say, “Here is a big engineering project in a developing country, and the procurement includes consulting engineering services in the United Kingdom. Do we need to know whether that it is wholly or mainly funded?” Maybe we could work through some case studies.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. The principle here is ensuring that our procurement laws cover our own activities, so it is right to clarify where that is the case. I am happy to write further on this matter. I do not see anything wrong here and, in fact, I suggested to my officials before this debate that we look specifically at an example that could help to illustrate this—one floated earlier, concerning World Bank funding, would be very good to follow up on. We are happy to demonstrate that. However, this seems eminently sensible, so, unless it were felt otherwise, I would be reluctant to give way on this point, which clarifies the issue very well.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. I sense that the Committee would be happy for us to take this away and look at it. We may or may not need to return to it on Report, but I am grateful to my noble friend for that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The Trade Marks Act 1994 at no point uses the phrase “established by use”. However, it specifically makes provision for registered trademarks, whereas—this was the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley; he may be wrong and looking for clarification from the Minister—if it is established by use then it would presumably be unregistered, as he said. Therefore, would it not be subject to common law through the concept known as “passing off”? With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

As always, I am grateful to noble Lords for their points. Clearly, it is easy to confuse trademarks and geographical indications. With geographical indications, there is a principle of established use, whereas with trademarks, something is either trademarked or it is not. That is why we are comfortable with the language as it sits.

There is no reference in the Trade Marks Act 1994 to the concept of “established by use”, because the concept refers to unregistered trademarks, whereas the Trade Marks Act is concerned principally with protections conferred on registered marks. However, “established by use” has meaning under the law relating to geographical indications.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I remain confused because, in Clause 4(3), “established by use” relates to the trademark and not to the GI. I see the point that my noble friend makes, but where is the concept of a trademark established by use?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I apologise to my noble friend, but that is not how I read it. It is linked to designation—that is, if origin and geographical indication conflict with trademarks. It would be logical that “established by use” is in relation to geographical indications. I am afraid that that is how I have read it. I do not think that there is an inconsistency. As with all things, I am very comfortable having a further look at it, but I think it would be an issue if we took out “established by use” and inserted

“in use prior to that date”,

which could result in applications for GIs being rejected under our amended rule, which is not required under CPTPP.

It is important to note that this authority allows the Secretary of State to restrict the use of a geographical indication if it is likely to cause confusion for any GIs that come in after accession or after this Bill becomes an Act. Clearly, she must have an eye to the UK legislative framework. The provision gives her the power to clarify the geographical indications. I do not believe that I have missed anything, but I am probably about to be corrected.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

You are not—I would not dream of doing so—but I think the point made by the noble Lord is worth further consideration. My—relatively recent—reading of it is that we are pointing in two directions. There is a question about trademarks and how they may or may not be protected consequent on us joining the CPTPP; there is also the question of the very new idea of GIs. They are recent inventions and I do not think we have quite tracked out where they go and what they do. For example, if Melton Mowbray pies are to become a standard under which we take this forward, we need to think quite carefully about what that means in relation to the countries that we are joining, because the tradition there is completely different. I am not saying that the wording is wrong, but it would be helpful to have a discussion offline.

I have always found in these matters—others will have heard me on this—that there is a small group in your Lordships’ House who really understand and like intellectual property. It has a nasty habit of tripping you up if you do not get it right first time round, and we might be in that sort of territory here.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that he does not feel that I have been tripped up by this. I am very comfortable with what we have drafted. It gives protections in the right way for GIs which are established by use, and it clarifies the difference between those and trademarks. As with all things, it is important that we have a deep discussion about this, so I am very comfortable having further debates about it. We will no doubt return to this matter, because it is important. It is not a political point to make but a technical point to ensure that we are doing it in the right way. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, GIs are a relatively new concept. At the same time, it makes sense to ensure that our historical GIs which have been in established use are properly protected. We have the opportunity to protect them into the future against other GIs that may cause confusion with commercial intent.

I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, but, clearly, we are happy to have further discussions and I am sure that my officials will engage on that at the first possible opportunity.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I am very happy to proceed on the basis he proposes, but I say that the way it is structured at the moment, “established by use” relates to the trademark, not to the GI, so the concept of a trademark established by use in statute when it is not in the Trade Marks Act seems a potential problem. I leave that thought. We will talk about it more and may need to come back to it, just as we did on the preceding group. I am grateful to my noble friend for his willingness to have a good look at it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, apropos of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, it is important not to get carried away by the precautionary principle because it introduces difficult conflicts in the arrangements of our own law. The precautionary principle owes a great deal to the civil law tradition and its code-based arrangements, whereas our common-law approach is much more open and based on case law, and it is more conducive to our businesses.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank everyone who attended Second Reading. It seems a very few did; I do not know where everyone has come from since then. I was there. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who recommended that I read the Hansard of the Second Reading, which I thought was peculiar, since I definitely remember being there, but maybe it was an avatar or a creation. None the less, it is important that people feel that they can come into and out of these different discussions to add value where they can.

I shall try to answer these very important points in order, but please forgive me if I miss anything because I want to make sure that we have a chance to go through them. I shall begin by addressing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, as much as the amendment itself. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the same point slightly earlier, which I did not cover, about our agricultural attachés and the importance of making the most of our free trade agreements. I completely agree that there is an unlimited amount that any Government can do to promote the advantages of free trade and the free trade agreements, so I am keen and open, as is the department, to hear any views or suggestions that we can deploy effectively and cost-effectively to spread the word. It is why these debates are so important.

It is also why the initiatives we have taken are very relevant. We are assessing a range of different options, including using AI to feed into information we get from HMRC on what companies are engaged in or where they are already exporting to. Where there may be overlaps, we can then contact the companies and promote the different free trade options. It is complicated, but essential because if we do not promote the free trade options, what are we doing having these lengthy debates about free trade agreements? I am happy to be pressed on that. Clearly, it is important that the department reports on the assistance it gives to exporters, and it does. For example, earlier today I was talking to one of our IT staff who was presenting to me the effects that their specific system is having on exports. He listed a very significant total which he said was growing continually. These sorts of areas are reported on, and they should be. We should be held to account on that.

When it comes to specific reports on the effect on GIs, the noble Lord is trying to approach two concepts, as I understand it. First, there will be derogative elements on GIs, so have we protected our GIs and is there a protection regime being effectively deployed on account of us joining the CPTPP? That is difficult to do because not all countries have a multilateral agreement rather than a single country-to-country free trade agreement, and not all countries—I am afraid I cannot recall which ones but Australia and New Zealand in relation to our relationship via the EU is a good example—have geographical indications regimes, so it would not count; they could not police it. However, by having these stated relationships and highlighting these principles, we already go a long way to effectively protecting our GIs in CPTPP countries because we have a forum in which we can have open and frank discussions. It is clearly not in any country’s interest to derogate another country’s trademark policies, GIs or whatever. It would be difficult to apply this piece, but I am fully aware of the importance of making sure that this is clearly monitored.

The second part goes back to my first answer, which was about how we make the most of our GIs, such as cheddar cheese or whatever. We continue to invest particularly in the area of agriculture. I think we have one dozen—it may be nine, but between nine and 12—agricultural attachés placed around the world, funded by Defra and supported by the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is a multistrand initiative, which we think is very important in order to promote these products. Scotch whisky has been mentioned. As we are aware, tariffs into Malaysia will be reduced in gradations from 80%—a rate which effectively doubles the price of a bottle of whisky—to effectively zero over the next 10 years. These are important changes. I see them as agricultural products—food, drink and agricultural products linking together to be supported.

A number of noble Peers rightly raised the point about reporting. I will not go into all the different details, but I will try to touch on them. I would be reluctant—we will have this debate in the next Committee session on 14 December—statutorily to oblige the Secretary of State to undertake significant, specific levels of reporting. Noble Lords might say that that is because I am a government Minister, and officials always tell Ministers to avoid producing statutory reports. As a civilian, before I entered this job, I asked, “Why are we not producing more reports?” Having gone into the Government, I now realise that you can produce a lot of reports, but the problem is that if they are statutory government reports, the principles behind them can often become outdated very fast, so you lose flexibility. They are also enormously costly to produce. I see how the government machine functions: it rightly respects Parliament and its writ and so wants to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, so you often end up producing supposedly very comprehensive reports that do not really tell us what we are looking for.

What we have agreed to and will see over the next period is much more useful. In 2024, CPTPP countries will do a review of CPTPP and how it has worked. Two years after our accession to the treaty we will produce a summary report on the effects of CPTPP, and after five years we will produce a full report. It would be more useful to clarify the sorts of areas we wish to cover in those reports. We had this debate with Australia and New Zealand, and we came to some sensible conclusions. I was very happy giving Dispatch Box commitments, as a government Minister, that these will be the so-called obvious areas that we will want to investigate. Clearly one of them will be whether we have protected our intellectual property of whatever type, and others will be the effect on the environment and on standards, if any.

On that, to go to my next point, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised in association with his amendment, I think there has been some misunderstanding as to what a free trade agreement is. A free trade agreement does not change anything about UK standards. We already trade with all those countries significantly, such as with Malaysia. Perhaps I should raise my interests so they are on record: I have done a huge amount of business in the past with all those countries, and I still have interests in companies that operate in them—maybe I should have said it at the beginning, although I do not think it is relevant to this debate. However, I was doing business there when we did not have the CPTPP, so it does not make any difference to the standards employed in this country—there is no derogation from our standards.

If my officials agree, I will read from the excellent report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which your Lordships will all have read and which I think came out today—I am never quite sure what is in the public domain or not, but this is. I shall read out only two questions. Question 1 is:

“Does CPTPP require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection in relation to (a) animal or plant life or health, (b) animal welfare, and (c) environmental protection? Answer: No”.


Question 2 is:

“Does CPTPP reinforce the UK’s levels of statutory protection in these areas? Answer: Yes”.


That is pretty relevant for me—I hope your Lordships do not think I am being glib, because clearly the report says more than that. However, that is an important assessment—I think some noble Lords sit on the TAC, but maybe not those in the Room today. It is not about derogating our standards in any way but is particularly about making sure that our businesses can deploy their skill sets and expertise more effectively, with less friction and with lower tariffs, which is good for the consumer and for our businesses. However, it does not change our standards, or, by the way, the standards of the countries to which we are exporting.

I will roll on to the other points, which are on the rules of origin. It is perfectly normal for traders to self-certify, and in fact, that is what we want. I have visited freeports recently, another great initiative of this Government, so I have seen a number of port activities. Efficient port activities rely on ad hoc inspections, therefore risk-based approaches to customs clearances for most things, and that is absolutely right. Although the rules of origin are complicated, and there are varying channels of rules of origin, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, so rightly pointed out, it is up to the company to choose the avenue that it uses. I believe that we have the right resources to make sure that our rules of origin processes are properly checked, and I have continued to check that. However, there is also a committee in CPTPP on the rules of origin so this can be further discussed and clarified. It met last month and we attended it as an acceding member, so we are already participating in this, which is important.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly raised the principle around the timing of the report; I think I covered that point in the sense that certainly after 12 months it would be unhelpful to produce a report on anything, frankly. However, if we are going to produce a report after two years, which we have committed to do, I am very happy to have further discussions about what will be in that report and what will be in the five-year report.

I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the extremely close relationship that we have with Korea— rather than attend the Second Reading, he and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, attended the address by President Yoon. That is a good example in that although South Korea is not a member of CPTPP, we celebrated, thanks to the good works of the investment team, over £20 billion-worth of investment in the UK. That was a significant celebration of the depth of our relationship with Korea—if I may say that as an aside and champion the investment department at the Department for Business and Trade.

I will cover two points on the precautionary principle, which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, raised, which is important, and it is clearly in this amendment. The precautionary principle already exists in the Environment Act 2021, so I think the Secretary of State has to have an eye to it in her activities, as do all Secretaries of State. To add it into this free trade agreement would create unnecessary duplication and parallel obligations, which causes confusion for businesses and countries.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The Minister is quite correct. It is in a statement associated with the Act, but it applies only to the environment. Of course, the trade under this Bill goes somewhat wider, and there is just the thought that it should apply more broadly across the potential changes in protections.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that comment; I am happy to have a discussion with him and other noble Lords about this. We would resist this significantly. It would cause confusion to have parallel principles around how the Secretary of State should act in relation to this FTA and in other areas, in terms of how we manage our own economy and how we check our supply chains. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, was right to raise the concept of supply chains; I have conversations with many noble Lords in many instances about the principles around how we protect our products in this country from supply chains that we find are either not aligned with our values—as well raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—or lack competitive advantage. I have great sympathy in particular with the agriculture sector, with which I have engaged significantly and which says that it is not about free trade but that we are obliged to conform to standards that are significantly higher than in other countries. It is classified as unfair, and we are very sensitive to that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for referring explicitly to the supply chain issue. It should form the basis of further discussion, perhaps outside the Committee and before we get to Report. If we look at the requirements under the 2015 modern slavery legislation—pioneered by the Minister’s right honourable friend Theresa May during her time in the Home Office—we see that it places duties on us to look at the way in which products have been manufactured. It is not just about the precautionary principle; this is asking us, every time we take decisions about things that we are going to purchase in this country, what the supply chain was. It is not just about free trade; it is about fair trade. How can manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom possibly compete if people are using slave labour in places in Xinjiang?

I take the Minister back, if I may, to the amendments that I moved during the passage of the Trade Act 2021 and the Health and Care Act 2022 and, indeed—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others will recall—the Procurement Act 2023. They all looked at our duties and obligations under the 2015 legislation. By very significant margins, cross-party amendments were added to all those pieces of legislation. I simply ask the Minister: how will we comply with the 2015 Act? Would he agree to have discussions outside the Committee before we go further on that point?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I absolutely make myself available to have discussions outside this Committee on all points. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to my original statement that collaboration around this is very high.

I will try to make a philosophical point which I think is very important: this is a free trade agreement. It is concerned principally with tariffs, smooth movement of trade and other principles. It is very important to separate that from the important standards that we hold ourselves to in this country. It is right that we have a number of very important pieces of legislation that drive standards in supply chains. Any of us who have been involved in business know that we have to ascertain our supply chains. In other areas, particularly in relation to the environment, I believe that supply chains are covered very well by our legal processes in terms of child slavery and other abhorrent activities. That is well understood and the supply chain obligations are very clearly understood. In the environment, it is still more nuanced. It will always be a complex area, because other geographies clearly have different environmental advantages and disadvantages compared with us. We are still working on that, but it is for a separate track of legislation. I do not think that it is right to confuse the principles of the legislation around free trade agreements with legislation around our own supply chain obligations.

When given the decision, should one be in a free trade area, able to bring to bear one’s own values to make necessary changes, or not be, because you do not believe that the participant parties are aligned with your values? I would prefer always to pick the former.

Although I would not necessarily suggest that there was a significant gulf between us, Australia and New Zealand when we negotiated the Australia and New Zealand FTAs, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the engagement with the UK on environmental and animal welfare issues resulted in significant changes in the Australian and New Zealand domestic animal welfare and environment policies. I have no specific evidence of that, but I know full well that there were strong levels of conversation around that and, at the same time, Australia and New Zealand made significant changes in our direction in both areas. Either that was a great coincidence or it was partially supported by the fact that we were collaborating with them more effectively. This is what the CPTPP will allow us to do.

I refer back to the TAC report, which made clear our own standards for pesticides, which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. That does not change: nothing changes in our standards the day after CPTPP comes into force—that is for our own sovereignty to control.

I ask that this amendment is withdrawn, but clearly I am here to discuss in detail how we can reassure noble Lords that the principles around the need to report on the effectiveness and concomitant effects of the FTA are properly established, as well as other key points around derogation and key values issues, which should be properly controlled and contained.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful and interesting reply. My understanding is that Ministers are always advised to read Hansard: that is when they find out, the next day, what they should have said at the Dispatch Box and what officials have made sure is in print. The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, is absolutely right: nothing in the Companion required noble Lords to say that they met the President of Korea, but I guess it sounds good.

I thank all noble Lords who took part. At the start of his contribution, the Minister said that he did not see the value of the statutory reporting in many respects. I noted that he subsequently quoted from a statutory report and said that there was great value in it. Given that the TAC was the result of amendments that Parliament asked of the Government, I will take the second part of what he said as the basis of the ministerial response—there is great value in that statutory report. But, as my noble friend Lord Foster said at Second Reading at col. 700, it would have been helpful to have had that report in advance of the start of the Second Reading. Nevertheless, we will study that report now that it has been released.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, was right to make reference to the growing economies within this area. However, if we had the data on the growth of the CPTPP economies and stripped out their reliance on the growth of the Chinese economy, I wonder what those growth figures would look like vis-à-vis those in Europe. I suspect that they would be rather similar. It is hard to disaggregate the growth of the Asia-Pacific economy from that of the Chinese economy. I note that UK imports from China, for example, have grown to over £40 billion, now that we have a trade deficit in goods with China. The impact of China’s growth is disproportionate with regard to them all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I again thank noble Lords for their input. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to my declaration of interests and asked about my interests in Malaysia. I do not have any interests in Malaysia, but I have had interests there, which serve to highlight the points I tried to make about trade. My interests are very clearly listed on the Lords’ register. I have small shares in fund management businesses but, as I said, I do not believe there is any conflict relating to this debate. I am always very cautious in that area, so I like to make everything as transparent as possible. I apologise for not making my declarations at the beginning of the debate.

I will now cover the important points. It is important to reaffirm that, as I committed to at Second Reading, the Intellectual Property Office will undergo a full consultation and report early next year on the effects these changes will have on artists and the industry itself in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am sorry, but although it will report early next year, that will be after we have concluded all our deliberations on the Bill.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

That is true of the House of Lords process, but I assume that, by then, the Bill will be in the other place, so there will be an opportunity to reference the consultation. My point is that the consultation will not have an effect on the treaty in the sense that we are able to take ameliorative action as a nation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this, but it is not necessary to make amendments to the CPTPP Bill. We want to take time to decide the best course of action relating to how artists are compensated for their works being broadcast on broadcast media.

I am very comfortable with the principles around the consultation process, and I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that I have taken a significant personal interest in ensuring that we get into this debate with all the details that it presents. It is not necessarily as straightforward as it may appear. I admit to coming to this at First Reading and thinking, “This seems an extremely reasonable affair; shouldn’t all artists receive 50% of their broadcast rights?” Further investigation shows that the situation is much more complicated, with different artists having different concepts of rights, particularly in America, which has the largest market in relation to this, and certain revenues being able to be captured and retained in the UK, rather than repatriated, and so on. A very relevant point was raised to do with reciprocity.

If I may, I will explain to noble Lords, who know more about these subjects than I do, that joining CPTPP fundamentally changes an important principle in how we assess artists’ rights. The copyright Act extends rights to performers who are nationals of or who give a performance in a “qualifying country”, the principle being that you will qualify for the protections if you are a British citizen or if you perform—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, regularly does—your musical extravaganzas in the United Kingdom or in countries that are specifically linked via the Rome convention, for example. The secondary legislation to the CPTPP will change this. It requires that we introduce a new basis of qualification which is linked to where the music is first published. To qualify, you do not have to be either a citizen of a CPTPP country or doing the performance in a CPTPP country, so long as it is first published there. There are grace periods around that too.

It is not as simple as saying that artists’ remuneration and royalty payments are extended to everyone in the world, because that is not the case. For example, a US citizen giving an original performance in the US and registering it there would not qualify if it was then broadcast on UK media. It is important to understand that there are some nuances. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, if he has a technical point.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I was not going to intervene, although I was tempted. The Minister is 100% right that this is incredibly complicated. There is the issue of a UK session musician who performs on an American record that is then first performed elsewhere. The complications are enormous. The problem is that the proposed changes also have enormous potential implications, none of which we have had the opportunity to debate or fully understand the impact of on the UK music industry, which is confused about this. All I am asking the Minister to do is accept that there is something incredibly complicated, but it can and should be dealt with separately.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his understanding of the complexity of this. I hope I have been able to explain to noble Lords the different principles in what we currently look to in our copyright Act and what we are signing up to in the CPTPP. It is certainly navigable. Regardless of accession to the CPTPP, it is already complicated, and there are specific agencies to make sure that these royalties are properly collected and stored.

I am reluctant to accept these amendments today and ask noble Lords who have proposed them to withdraw them, but I am very comfortable with having further discussions. It would be helpful for us to have a good discussion with the IPO so that people feel comfortable that the consultation is going in the right direction and that the right levels of input are being prescribed. The tertiary changes that we may wish to make to protect our music industry and artists would not necessarily be linked to this trade Bill, but they are important.

I am glad that I have managed to highlight and explain the new approach on who is eligible for these resale rights, because I think in the first instance it was assumed that everyone would be. That is not the case. It is important to differentiate that. We are signing up to a new approach in the CPTPP and this clearly forms part of our treaty obligations. It is very relevant that we debate that in some depth.

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, raised a very good point in his amendment. I hope I can reassure him that this is not retrospective, but it would make sense for performances undertaken before the date to qualify. However, you would not be paid royalties for qualifying performances that were broadcast before the date. Otherwise, everyone would claim for past performances over the 70 years that IP goes back to—that would be totally impractical and inappropriate and is not what we are suggesting at all. Our legal advice is clear that the cut-off date is the day on which this comes into force. Anything following that point would qualify. Historic performances are clearly part of the IP record, but you would not receive royalties for anything from before that point. I hope that reassures noble Lords.

I hope I have covered the points raised. I am very grateful for noble Lords’ input on this important, sensitive and complex area. As is often the case in dealing with noble Lords in this Room, we are talking not about party-political or even political issues but issues of detail that have great ramifications. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is keen to intervene as I may not have covered his points. The order of this is that the first statutory instrument gives the Secretary of State the power to make the changes, after which there is the consultation, and then the second instrument makes the changes. I hope that helps answer his initial point on the order of activity.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend has referred very well to all the issues relating to the definition of a qualifying performance, but my amendment relates narrowly and specifically not to subsection (2) but to subsection (3). It concerns the question of a qualifying country not simply in relation to the CPTPP and takes a power to make Orders in Council to extend the definition of “qualifying country” in future—not just to CPTPP countries but, potentially, beyond. My noble friend says that the Secretary of State can publish a draft and then consult on it. They can do that, but there is nothing in the legislation to say that they should. I would like to be sure. If my noble friend is saying that such a consultation must take place, I am not sure where it is clear that it must.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

We have not legislated for a consultation—there is no mention of that in the Bill—but we made such an undertaking at Second Reading. It is part of the process and we are very aware of the need to consult.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Is that an undertaking always to consult before making an order under Sections 206 or 208 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

No, I am sorry—it is not an undertaking to consult on the artist performance rights every time changes may be made to the countries that become applicable.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Just to be clear, what my noble friend has said may satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath—is that “Bath” with a short or a long “a”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am very happy to have conversations about this. Clearly, these FTAs make it difficult, if we are to comply with them, to have various and significant amendments to them. However, I am reassured by my officials that, in making significant changes to “qualifying countries”, we would make sure that there was an appropriate level of consultation. I am very sensitive about making great promises from the Dispatch Box because I always find myself getting into trouble later, but I hope that—

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

No, I think it is good. Carry on.

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, would like me to make off-the-cuff commitments on behalf of the Government. It would be only logical to assume that there would be a degree of consultation in the same way that we are effecting one in this instance but, since I cannot give a firm commitment, I am very comfortable to come back to my noble friend between now and Report.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

That reassurance affords me the opportunity to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.