Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Hain and Baroness Blower

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Covid-19 pandemic has shone a spotlight on unacceptable working conditions, especially those endured by many key workers, and on some of the downsides of globalisation—job insecurity, zero-hours contracts, unfairly poor pay, discrimination and lack of recognition—and it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hendy’s very able and expert moving of Amendment 17.

The Covid-19 pandemic has emphasised the significance of employment laws and of gaps in international trade agreements, notably the inadequate protection of labour standards and the woeful lack of requirements that contractors for public sector work should abide by ILO conventions ratified by the UK. Ministers have been keen to distinguish between trade deals rolled over from pre-existing EU trade agreements and new deals yet to be struck independently of the UK. The focus of the Trade Bill is on the former, but if these are to be the foundations for future UK trading relationships in the post-Brexit period, they hardly look secure: far from it. Instead, the Bill is full of holes.

This amendment seeks to fill in some of those holes. It guards against regulations implementing any trade deal that permits investor-state dispute settlement arrangements that expose democratically decided laws to potential threat from foreign companies claiming billions in compensation for supposed losses. My noble friend Lord Hendy spelled out examples and I will add two others. These are not hypothetical threats. Canada has been sued for a moratorium on fracking in Quebec, and Mexico for attacks on sugary drinks to fight diabetes. The amendment will also prevent trade deals that contravene international standards of labour law, such as ILO conventions to which the UK is committed and articles of the European Social Charter, ratified by the UK.

Succeeding in global markets today demands more than matching your competitors’ prices. It means setting fresh standards of product quality and providing unparalleled levels of customer service. That can be done only by adopting world-class ways of working and by treating your workforce with respect for the standards set by ILO conventions. For the life of me —I mentioned this when I last spoke in this Committee—I do not understand why the Government are not accepting these amendments, unless they have an entirely different deregulated, low-labour-standards, low-tax, Singapore-on-Thames agenda for Britain. So I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that point when he replies.

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak on Amendment 17, to which I have added my name.

While the history of trade negotiations may not be completely littered with the fragments of failed attempts, it is certainly the case that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, failed, after several years of negotiations, to come to any conclusion. In Britain, much of the opposition was on the basis of the perceived—and I believe very real—threat to our NHS: the threat that the NHS would not survive as a public service and that the writ of privatisation would run ever more unchecked. I was pleased to hear a most eloquent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, offering a catalogue of already privatised and outsourced elements from our NHS, and, significantly, pointing out the dangers that this posed.

Equally, the opposition to TTIP, not just in Britain but across Europe, focused, as my noble friend Lord Hendy said, on the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism—ISDS. My noble friend gave chapter and verse on the reasons for opposing ISDS. I concur with his remarks and associate myself with those of my noble friend Lord Hain.

Let me add a perspective from the United Nations, specifically from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. As the Committee might expect, ISDS features in UNCTAD reports. In May of this year, we find the following in one of its reports:

“Foreign investors have used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by States in the public interest (for example … to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health)”—


all issues close, I am sure, to the hearts of many in this House. The report goes on:

“Broad ISDS mechanisms typically used in old-generation”


international investment agreements

“provide for the contracting parties’ advance consent to international arbitration and are characterized by broad scope, few conditions for investors’ access to ISDS and a lack of procedural improvements. As ISDS is at the heart of the IIA reform process, in recent IIAs countries have carefully regulated ISDS and at times omitted it”

completely.

UNCTAD goes on to make a number of recommendations, but I shall confine myself to this one:

“Replacing ISDS by settling disputes in domestic courts and/or through State-State dispute settlement”.


In July, UNCTAD returned to the question and said:

“Policy responses taken by governments to address the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout could create friction with existing IIA obligations. This highlights the need to safeguard sufficient regulatory space … to protect public health and to minimize the risk of”


ISDS proceedings.

There are huge problems with the ISDS mechanism, from Philip Morris to the Portuguese metro and so many more. It would therefore be wise for the Government to heed the words of the United Nations—but, more so, to heed those of my noble friend Lord Hendy. ISDS should have no place in our future trade arrangements. I will listen extremely carefully and with great interest to the response from the Minister.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Hain and Baroness Blower

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who spoke very eloquently; I endorse what she said.

I will speak to Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and my noble friends, which I have signed. I very much endorse the speeches of my noble friends Lord Stevenson and Lady Bennett. On Amendment 18 in particular, I welcome and endorse the excellent contribution of my noble friend Lord Hendy, who adds enormous authority on these issues.

My noble friend mentioned that the Canada-European Union agreement—CETA—includes the very kinds of provisions that we are asking for in Amendment 18. I note that leading Conservatives—Brexiteers—have spoken of “Canada-plus” as a future basis for a trade agreement with the European Union. Does Canada-plus mean labour rights-minus? A failure to adopt Amendment 18 would imply that that is the case, and that that is the real agenda of the Brexiteers.

Amendment 18 would preclude the UK from agreeing any international trade agreement if its regulations contravened the UK’s international labour law commitments. The UK is a member of the International Labour Organization and has been so since 28 June 1919. Under the auspices of the ILO, fully 88 conventions and two protocols have already been ratified by the United Kingdom. I cannot see why the Minister could not agree to this amendment and why the Government would not endorse it since, in effect, it reinforces the status quo to which we have already signed up in all future trade agreements.

Of course, that is unless the Government’s real agenda is a kind of Singapore-upon-Thames, with a deregulated structure of labour rights, environmental rights and all sorts of other rights that we have come to expect as representing the standards that we want in Britain; an offshore haven of low labour regulations, low standards and low tax. That is what leading Conservatives, particularly the Prime Minister and his henchman Dominic Cummings, have been talking about. Surely we should not be racing to the bottom in every respect for British citizens and workers but seeking to match the best, such as the Scandinavian countries, which have high standards in these matters—high levels of public services and the public expenditure to sustain that. They have also had, by the way, much higher levels of productivity and economic success than Britain has had under this Government for the last 10 years, prior to Covid.

What sort of “taking back control” will it mean if we do not adopt Amendment 18, or at least a version of it that the Government might favour for technical reasons? What does “taking back control” mean for Brexiteers? Instead of high-quality, high-skilled standards it would mean low-quality, low-skilled standards, particularly on labour rights.

I should point out that the ILO standards that this amendment seeks to reinforce and insist on for any future trade agreements that the UK might strike with other countries are a minimum, not a maximum. They have been achieved by agreement across the world and therefore, inevitably, are not the maximum we should be aiming for. Surely we should, in a high-quality Britain that aims to be the best for its citizens, aim for the maximum. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said so poignantly, the amendment is surely uncontroversial because it asks the Government to adopt in future trade agreements what they have already signed up to in ILO conventions and protocols. I hope that the Minister will accept it or explain why not and what sort of agenda is really on offer for the British people from his Government.

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 18. As has been said by my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Hain, it is an uncontroversial amendment. I too look forward to the Minister’s response, in which I am sure he will welcome it.

I consider it fundamental that the rule of law should be enshrined in the Bill, as should the legal authority of the United Kingdom courts and the principle of equality before the law. It should go without saying that respect for the rule of law can be relied on in the United Kingdom. However, as doubts may have been cast thereon in recent weeks, this amendment is necessary to ensure that international trade agreements observe both the conventions of the ILO—mentioned frequently in this debate and up to which Britain has already signed—and the ratified articles of the 1961 European Social Charter.

My noble friend Lord Hendy has provided a full rationale for this amendment and, as amply demonstrated by reference to CETA, precisely how it can and should work. I fully endorse and concur with his remarks and I look forward to the Minister’s response.