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

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I rise to speak to the proposed new clause “Review: forest risk commodities”, which is in my name and the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord McNicol. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has spoken and I thank him for his support. I also appreciated the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, when she spoke earlier, and I strongly agree with the case she made for prioritising indigenous people. There is no cheaper or more effective solution, if we are interested in protecting nature, than backing those who have been doing that for generations. The maths and facts speak for themselves—80% of terrestrial biodiversity is in land looked after, and in some cases owned by, indigenous people, so the noble Baroness makes the point very well.

Deforestation is a major environmental crisis for so many reasons. We heard earlier from the noble Baroness that the displacement of people all over the world is causing runaway biodiversity collapse and the loss of a terrifying variety of lifeforms. Once gone, they are never going to come back. Nearly 90% of deforestation is caused by agricultural expansion. The resulting loss of habitat has caused a horrifying decline in everything from tigers and elephants to rhinos, hornbills and orangutans. Orangutans, incidentally, are relevant to this amendment because they tend to live in areas where palm oil is so prevalent; they have lost 80% of their habitat in the last 20 years.

Forest loss goes far beyond even that. The Congo basin, whose forest is disappearing at a rate of around 1 million hectares every single year, produces most of the rainfall for the entire continent of Africa. If those trends are allowed to continue, we are going to see humanitarian crisis on biblical scales. In the Amazon too—we do not fully understand the role of the Amazon in generating rainfall, but we know it generates rainfall and that that rainfall falls in the southern states of the United States, and that without the Amazon there would be huge repercussions across that entire region—it is in everyone’s interest that stopping deforestation remains a top priority.

I have not even mentioned climate change at this point. Deforestation is now the second leading cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels. There is no credible solution to climate change and no credible net-zero plan that does not include nature at its very heart. A plan that does not include nature is not, in real terms, a plan at all.

It is for these reasons I am bringing this amendment to the House today. Noble Lords have previously expressed concern that, once ratified, the CPTPP agreement will remove all tariffs on palm oil irrespective of its environmental credentials. They are right to flag this issue, which has been flagged a number of times, because in pursuing that policy we risk, at the very least, undermining the core of our COP 26 messaging on the importance of forest.

It also contradicts commitments made by the Government under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act to tackle illegal deforestation in our supply chains. Indeed, without the safeguards of the due diligence secondary legislation in place—that safeguard is not there yet and I hope the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance about when that is going to happen—it is simply irresponsible to pursue a policy of this sort.

Around 90% of the world’s palm oil is grown in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is estimated that around 1% of Malaysian palm oil smallholdings are certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. That 1% makes up around 40% of all the palm oil plantations in Malaysia. The RSPO is probably the most widely recognised certification scheme. It is voluntary, and among other things it requires that palm oil is deforestation- free.

We know what is possible when a Government are serious about this issue. We have actually seen amazing efforts and results in Indonesia. It gets very little credit for the work we have seen over the last few years, but under the leadership of a number of very impressive people, not least Minister Siti Nurbaya, that country has come pretty close—it has not done it yet, but has come pretty close—to breaking the link between palm oil production and environmental destruction. I think it should get more credit for the work it is doing, because it is a model that other commodity-producing countries could learn from.

I acknowledge and welcome, very briefly, the side agreement that the UK and Malaysian Governments have signed. It commits to strengthening efforts to conserve forests and promote sustainable supply chains, in particular around palm oils. In many respects, the statement goes further than the due diligence secondary legislation that I mentioned earlier. But the agreement still relies on the Malaysian sustainable palm oil certification scheme, as opposed to the RSPO, which I mentioned earlier. The details around the Malaysian scheme are unclear and in truth it is significantly less robust than the RSPO—I do not think anyone would argue against that.

That is why it is so vital that work is done to review the impact of that agreement once it is in place. This proposed new clause is very simple, and that is what it seeks to do. It would require a review every two years that would assess the effectiveness of that agreement, alongside the impact of the CPTPP trade deal, on the sustainable production of forest risk commodities more broadly, including palm oil of course, right the way through our supply chains. The review would also look at the impact of the deal on deforestation within CPTPP nations, and the compatibility of the deal with our own due diligence regulations.

I hope that noble Lords agree that it is a reasonable amendment. It offers a practical way of reaffirming the Government’s commitment to making sure that our own supply chains are part of the solution and not the problem, as well as empowering Parliament to hold the Government to account on this issue. The new clause is supported by a number of significant environmental organisations—WWF, Chester Zoo and others—and has support from Peers for the Planet, for which I am very grateful.

Very briefly, as I finish, I will say that in my previous capacity as Minister of State, I went to Chester Zoo and saw its pioneering work on sustainable palm oil—clearing up its own supply chains but then helping businesses in the area do exactly the same. I thank it on the record for its leadership on this issue and for its work more broadly. Its Kinabatangan Orangutan Conservation Project, which has been running for a quarter of a century, involves creating magnificent nature corridors linking up those little habitats, and making it possible for distinct and previously quite cut- off orangutan populations to meet, breed and strengthen their population.

We need to ensure that the environmental safeguards we put in place, such as this UK/Malaysia agreement, are effective. That is the purpose behind this amendment. Of course, a stronger, better and easier policy would be to remove tariffs entirely on commodities from countries that have broken the link between agricultural commodities and deforestation, or conversion of important ecosystems. We know that is possible: Gabon has broken the link between logging and deforestation; Costa Rica has broken the link between agricultural commodities and deforestation, and I mentioned Indonesia earlier.

I was thrilled to see that, in the free trade agreement between the EFTA and Indonesia, there is a commitment that palm and other vegetable oils that have been produced protecting primary forests, peatlands, and related ecosystems will get preferential market access. So it is possible to build these safeguards into the primary agreement but, in their absence, we have to act now by passing something similar, at least, to this amendment. I hope that, when he responds, the Minister will be able to provide some real, meaningful reassurances that the impact of these agreements on deforestation, on our supply chain and on our role as consumers in deforestation, is properly understood and monitored, and that we are indeed part of the solution and not the problem.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I first declare my interests. I will come to some notes about Amendment 11, so ably spoken to just now by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Right now, I rise to speak to Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, just said, she is unable to be here. I would also like to say that I support Amendment 6 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.

Amendment 12 is really very straightforward, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should not let this through. It just says that our border testing regimes must be robust enough so that we are aware of the new types of products that are going to enter the UK as a result of this trade agreement. We know that many countries in the CPTPP have products that contain levels of pesticides that exceed our safety limits, or indeed are actually banned because of their risks to human health, food safety and consumer protection, and are not covered at all by any import tolerances.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, described in Committee, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just reaffirmed, there are 119 pesticides that we ban that are permitted for agricultural use in one or more of the countries we are aiming to enter into a trade negotiation with. UK pesticide standards are stronger than those of the other countries and there is no expectation, I hope, that we are going to change our high standards. So, a successful trade agreement—which is presumably what the Government are after—will inevitably lead to some increase in agricultural imports to the UK. Indeed, the strength and effectiveness of our border control systems is an issue of relevance to all existing FTAs, not only to new ones.

The Trade and Agriculture Commission flags the

“likely pressure that will be placed on the UK’s border control regime”

as a result of the increase in trade, in combination with the new EU border control model. Reports on the ground, including from the NFU, flag the lack of inspection of products coming into the UK, and the risk of this to our biosecurity. This amendment is simple and pragmatic. It provides an opportunity for the Government to scrutinise the existing system to ensure that it operates with maximum effectiveness.

I turn now to Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, which is a further iteration of the one we tabled in Committee. Following on from his remarks, the purpose of the amendment is to both highlight our susceptibility to commodities linked to deforestation and to get assurances that the Government’s statutory review will consider this issue.

Since we last discussed it, the arguments have only been strengthened by the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on deforestation. It flagged that, in their first revision to the Environmental Improvement Plan, the Government committed to use their trade agreements and trading relationships

“to support the United Kingdom’s strong environmental and climate commitments”.

Despite this, in the course of the negotiations, we eliminated import tariffs on palm oil, which had been set at rates of up to 12%, from all CPTPP members, including Malaysia. So what is that going to do in terms of keeping sustainable palm oil production alive?

While it is true that we have existing agreements with many of the countries already, we do not with Malaysia and so it is of significance that this agreement will allow Malaysian palm oil—not necessarily sustainable —to enter the market with no tariff. As raised by Chester Zoo in its letter to Peers, around 90% of the world’s oil palm trees are grown on a few islands in Malaysia and Indonesia. Estimates suggest that as little as 1% of Malaysian palm oil is actually certified.

The EAC also noted that:

“While the UK is only the 15th largest contributor”


to tropical deforestation, we actually have a very intensive use. This is to do with our diet, which is so largely made up of ultra-processed food—66%, in fact—that depends on palm oil, when food products are smashed back into their original chemical state and then reconstituted to make the kinds of products that so carelessly litter our shelves. It seems to me that we therefore have a responsibility in this area.

I also want to challenge the idea that we are starting from a high point. We are not. Even if the Schedule 17 regulations were in place, they would apply only to illegal deforestation. That means that if a country decides to legalise deforestation, we have absolutely no recourse to stop those products entering our market. Legal or illegal, the damage is the same, and it should be treated as such. The EU regulations that are coming into force cover both, and I note that the EAC has recommended that legal deforestation be included within ours.

I would appreciate it if, in his winding-up speech, the Minister were able to confirm that the review that the Government will carry out in two years’ time, which he referred to in Committee, will take into account these concerns; and specifically if he can confirm that the joint statement with Malaysia to tackle deforestation and the MSPO—the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil Certification Scheme—have been effective. I also want to note my support for other amendments in this group.

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

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th December 2023 Grand Committee

I have a final point: there is an obvious slip of the drafting pen, which I realised and now realise even more. On the timing for any of these impact assessments, I obviously meant to write “two years” rather than “12 months”, but I think that is self-evident in the coding of the drafting. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 15 in my name, and I support other amendments in this group, notably Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown, as well as Amendments 18 and 29.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, alongside my noble friend Lady Willis, for Amendment 15. My intention in tabling it was twofold: to understand how the Government expect the CPTPP agreement to operate in the context of the commitments that they have made on forest risk commodities and how they will ensure robust monitoring and enforcement with the new countries that we will trade with in that bloc and, linked to this, to query when the Government will enact the forest risk commodities regulations under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021.

On the latter point, I welcome the announcement at the weekend by the Environment Secretary on some of the content of the regulations. The letter that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, yesterday said that they will be brought into force as soon as parliamentary time allows. These announcements suggest that the regulations are imminent, so I hope the Minister can now clarify for us exactly when they will be brought in. Will it be January, before he comes back? If he cannot tell me that, can he confirm that the regulations will at least be in place before we accept the rest of the agreement? That is a crucial point.

It is critical that this happens as soon as it can, not least because, following the Financial Services and Markets Act earlier this year, in response to an amendment passed by this House, the Treasury is required to assess the extent to which regulation of the UK financial system is adequate to eliminate the financing of prohibited forest risk commodities. This review can happen only after the regulations in Schedule 17 are laid.

Moreover, the Environment Act received Royal Assent over two years ago and the consultation on this research closed over 18 months ago. In the meantime, Global Witness’s research in November showed that the UK’s direct imports of forest risk commodities such as beef, soy and palm oil directly contributed to areas of deforestation nearly twice the size of Paris. This has happened during the Government’s two-year delay. In that time, the EU has introduced its own rules, which have much wider scope, and has really moved forward with some ambitious thresholds.

This is important and relevant to today’s debate, because evidence shows that some countries that are parties to the CPTPP may engage in both illegal and legal deforestation. Indeed, although Schedule 17 regulations need to be implemented quickly, because we do not yet have any environmental requirements for what is imported, they are not perfect. They cover only illegal deforestation at the moment, which would not address the risk of the whole CPTPP treaty incentivising the production of deforestation risk commodities in countries where national laws are not sufficiently robust on deforestation or the rights of indigenous peoples, as was the situation in Brazil, as we knew, and is certainly the situation in Peru, from where we import quite a lot of stuff.

Will the Minister comment on how his department has reviewed this risk and what action we, the UK, will take to minimise it under the new agreement? With the Schedule 17 regulations expected imminently—but, as I said, I am looking forward to the clarification—could he also confirm that any forest risk commodities prohibited by the regulations will be prevented from entering our country, and how? Without having sight of these regulations, it is unclear how they will interact with the provisions of the CPTPP, which is what my amendment is aiming to clear up. Also, can the Minister confirm that, if these regulations are expanded or strengthened in the future, the agreement will not prevent the implementation of strengthened regulations? It is critical that we ensure that UK trade does not contribute to global deforestation, whether legal or illegal, but especially not illegal.

Turning to other amendments in the group, I am very supportive of Amendment 16, to which I have added my name. The health implications of some of the pesticides used in many of the countries party to this treaty are truly appalling. If anyone wants to go online and look up what kind of things will be coming in on fruit and veg and other products, they will find it scary. In Britain, when we were in the EU and still today, we had and have rigorous rules in place to prevent our children and ourselves having access to these pesticides, which are carcinogenic, affect fertility and do all sorts of weird and awful things. This is something that we have proudly fought for and should proudly uphold. Anything that allows stuff to sneak through under the wire has to be stopped; otherwise, it is not just a question of what it will do to our health but also completely undermines our high farming standards, which we all agree are terrific and have to be maintained.

I am also very keen that we support Amendment 18 on the assessments and procurement provisions, particularly in the Bill. That is something we should do for every trade agreement—and we should always go further and do comprehensive environmental impact assessments on detail, so that we understand our footprint. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol.

Notwithstanding the TAC’s limited resources, it has a really narrow remit and is not tasked to do this. I hope I have made clear the importance of understanding the climate and environment footprint in joining the CPTPP, as well as the health implications, which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, will outline in a second. I look forward to hearing what plans the Government have.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I shall speak to Amendment 16 and to Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on which we have just heard her speak. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Curry of Kirkharle, as well as the noble Baroness, who have added their names to my amendment.

In introducing my amendment, I pay tribute to Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on mitigating risks to the environment of food safety, which I support as highly relevant to the amendment that I have tabled and will talk about briefly today. Amendment 16 would ensure that the pesticide testing regimes at the UK borders are fit for purpose, when we have an increased number of food stocks for animals and humans arriving from CPTPP member countries. It specifically aims to ensure that our testing regimes are robust enough to monitor and prevent those foods that have these pesticides on them—because they have been used in the production of the food type—entering the countries.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, just said, our UK pesticide standards are some of the strongest in the world, and we should be very proud of that. In fact, they are stronger than those of all other CPTPP member countries. If noble Lords have not seen it, I recommend the Toxic Trade report, published in 2021 by the Pesticide Action Network. It revealed that 119 pesticides were banned from use in the UK but were still permitted in CPTPP member countries. Even more worrying than this, 67 of these are classified as highly hazardous pesticides, a UN concept that identifies pesticides that cause significant human harm.

I shall give two examples from when we ask whether we are over-worried about significant human harm. The first is Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide. To give noble Lords a hint of its problems, it was originally developed as part of a family of nerve agents during World War II and is now one of the most toxic and widely used pesticides globally. It is used by our CPTPP partners in Australia, Chile, New Zealand and Peru. What does it do? It has been identified through scientific research as a developmental or reproductive toxin. I checked through the good research on this, which demonstrates that it can permanently and irreversibly damage the developing brains of children. It is also a suspected endocrine disruptor, which means that it may interfere with the body’s hormone functioning. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor, which means that it may interrupt normal nerve signalling in the body. For all these reasons and due to this scientific evidence, it was banned by the UK and the EU in 2019.