Trade Bill

Debate between Earl of Sandwich and Earl of Caithness

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as a member of the new EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, I support any attempts in this debate to improve parliamentary scrutiny, although that is not the subject of this amendment. Our committee has already examined the promising Japan FTA and much of the less promising US FTA, and we are moving on to Australia, New Zealand and, beyond that, to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The Government have given us plenty to think about. Of course, much hangs on the overarching EU agreement, which we all await impatiently, because it affects the success of all the others.

The Minister has already acknowledged the value of our scrutiny under CRaG and that of the Commons’ IDC. I also believe that she shares my concern that CRaG is amendable and that all these FTAs and treaties should reflect the latest thinking on such issues as human rights and the SDGs, mentioned in the previous amendment.

The Minister said on Tuesday that work is being done on supply chains. It is a learning process, and I appreciate that this Bill is about continuity agreements, which already safeguard such issues. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has reminded us of that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, says that we are cluttering up the legislation. However, these issues are relevant because of the multitude of agreements on the horizon. Today’s amendments are about the environment and climate change, which are subjects of massive public concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said on Tuesday that we live in different times and under rules that are mainly a consequence of our long EU membership. High environmental and technical standards are what producers, traders and investors now want and expect.

We have already heard of a range of issues that constitute possible improvements, if not to this Bill then to future agreements. I recognise how difficult it is for a Government to accommodate all the interests represented, especially as they will have to be fitted to different agreements and different countries. Formal consultation with stakeholders and the public, as well as with Parliament through explanatory memorandums, correspondence and debates, is now an accepted part of CRaG procedure, and we must celebrate that.

These amendments, alongside those on international development and the SDGs, catch my attention because they are about the planet we live on. I have spent my working life learning about conditions in other countries, and it is not difficult to agree with the conservationists and the climate changers that much more must be done to adapt the world to a more carbon-free economy. When it comes to trade, the UK has a huge advantage: it is historically a famous trading nation and is one of the foremost countries adapting to climate change and acquiring scientific and technical know-how to help other countries. Non-EU agreements must surely include proper references to international obligations, as set out in these amendments.

Last week, the Commons International Trade Committee discussed the opportunities on the environment coming up in the CPTPP—the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, of which much is expected. These include not only the Paris targets, the rules governing renewable energy, carbon reduction and transport costs, but also tighter collaboration on the handling of emergencies, such as floods and forest fires, and even an environmental tax or tariff. New Zealand’s Prime Minister is a pioneer of sustainable trade. She is also critical in the developed world’s poor response to climate change. Through the CPTPP and the UN, she will no doubt offer good advice, even to Australia, on these issues.

The mutual benefits for global trade and sustainable development in trade agreements are fast coming up the agenda. As we enter a new era of free trade, the Government would do well to pay them more than lip service. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right: it is a matter of human survival.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank my noble friends, Lord Grimstone, the Minister, and Lord Younger of Leckie, together with their officials, for the time they gave me yesterday to discuss my concerns on this and other amendments.

Rather like the Agriculture Bill, we have a slight overlap of amendments. Inevitably, I am afraid that I will have to touch on Amendment 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and Amendment 17, which relates to investor-state dispute settlements. I will major a bit more on those when we come to them, but they are interlinked, because of Amendments 69 and 73.

The earlier amendments, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, refer to the international agreements. This is a continuity Bill, and I have little doubt that this Government—my Government—and indeed a Government in the colours of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester would abide by their international agreements. What concerns me more, however, is the wording picked by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering in Amendment 69, where she talks not of international agreements, but of

“standards established by primary and subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom”

and, in Amendment 73, where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talks about the

“appropriate authority to take action in pursuit of the UK’s climate and environmental goals”.

I am in total support of the Government in their ambition that climate change and environmental issues should be right at the centre of our trade policy. I hope that, when he sums up, my noble friend will confirm that that is indeed the Government’s position. My noble friend Lord Grimstone told me that yesterday, but it would be nice to have it on the official record.

However, my problem lies in looking at other countries that have tried to impose stricter standards other than international agreements and then get taken to court under ISDSs. I have two examples that I will expand upon. The first is Philip Morris v Australia in 2015. Philip Morris lost that case, and rightly so, but the problem was that it cost Australia 22 million Australian dollars, which seems an unnecessary amount of money for our Government to have to fork out if they are taken to court in a similar case. The other case that I shall mention at this stage is Cargill v Mexico, where Cargill was awarded $77.3 million when it won a case against a tax on high-fructose corn syrup that was introduced to address health concerns.