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

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee stage
Thursday 14th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 25 and 30 and then touch even more briefly on Amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 30, which will shortly be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, calls for a parliamentary debate on a CPTPP impact assessment. This is really important, because the influence of this House is not in the big decisions we take but over the Government—although it is too late when they have already signed a treaty—and the House of Commons. Although we do not normally tell the House of Commons what to do—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, chose his words very carefully—in this circumstance it is really important.

In addition to the impact assessment, the International Agreements Committee, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I sit on, will also write a report on the treaty. We can get that to influence the real decision-makers down the Corridor only if this amendment is agreed and we ensure that a debate happens there. The request for an impact assessment is a nice little segue into a debate on our report as well. By concentrating on the wider impact assessment, it also allows a wider range of issues to be considered, such as prices. Nobody ever talks about the impact of these agreements on prices. We hope that and other issues will be very good for consumers but we need to see that, so a debate will be important.

Amendment 25, which my noble friend Lord McNicol will speak to, requests an impact assessment on labour and ILO standards. This is key. We want this and any other FTA not just to maintain but, we hope, to bolster ILO standards—not just through paper adherence but enforcement. I think we all agree that trade is good for jobs, consumers, our exports and the economy, but that must not be at any price. It cannot undermine any ILO standards. Indeed, I hope it will enable us and others to be rather more observant of them.

Very briefly on Amendments 13 and 14, I strongly concur with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about the importance of increasing investment. As I will make a wider point, I declare that I am a leaseholder and am on the board of the ABI, but I bring to the Committee an issue of core importance to prospective overseas investors that I have read about in the financial and specialist press rather than know about through any personal connection. In a completely different part of government, there is an attempt, with leasehold reform, to make retrospective legislation to reduce ground rents to peppercorn rents. That is very attractive for lots of people, but there is a real clash with the desire to increase overseas investment via the CPTPP, because many overseas investors—to say nothing of our domestic pension schemes—are concerned about non-compensated loss of property rights or contracts if their ground rents are suddenly taken away from them retrospectively.

That retrospective nature could undermine the Government’s welcome attempts to get more international investment into the country, because the attractions are not just over trade agreements such as this but over all the other things that we know we are known and valued for: stability, certainty and the rule of law. That needs to go hand in hand if the objectives of this deal are to be taken into account.

That was a little off-piste, but I could not resist it. My real point is that we need to know far more at a more granular level and after the event about what this agreement has produced. That needs to be debated in this House and elsewhere so that the influence of, in particular, my colleagues and the specialists we have heard from, who put so much into this, can be heard at the other end of the building.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who was an extremely effective chairman of the International Agreements Committee. I have only two points.

First, in response to overwhelming demand across the Committee, I have agreed to repeat the extraordinarily boring technical point I made in our first day in Committee about deadlines. The majority of the amendments in this group set deadlines that hang on the passing of the Act. I respectfully suggest that what matters for reports is the date on which our accession takes effect. That might be in the course of next year—I hope it will be—but that is not certain. Some of these amendments would call for reports almost certainly before we have actually acceded. Accession takes place when the last ratification is received by the depositary power, so the right peg to hang it on is not the passing of the Act, which permits us to ratify, nor our ratification, but the 12th ratification, which allows us in. I know that these are mostly probing amendments, but I suggest to their drafters that it might be a good idea to use the peg of our actual accession rather than the passage of the Bill. I exempt some of the amendments in this group; this is only for the ones that hang on performance and how it is working out, because it would be well for us to be in before we require the Government to report on how being in is working out.

Secondly, I am a little concerned about Amendment 32— the accession amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Foster of Bath. It would require the Secretary of State to produce

“an impact assessment of the impact on the United Kingdom of the accession of countries that have submitted a request … to accede to the CPTPP within the last five years”.

That would include us; it would be jolly useful to have an impact assessment for us, but I do not think that is the purpose of the amendment. The deadline is

“within three months of the passing of this Act”,

which is the wrong deadline, for the reason I gave.

However, my point is more substantive than that. Apart from us, there are six countries whose applications to join the CPTPP have been received in the last five years: Ecuador, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Ukraine, China and Taiwan. The rules of the game, of course, are that consensus is required before a negotiation starts with any applicant country and consensus is required before a negotiation is closed, completed, and then the ratification process starts. It is also the case—not so much in our case but in previous cases—that there have been a lot of side letters and deals done in the margins of the main accession negotiation.

It is misleading to call for an impact assessment of what would be the impact of the outcome of any of these six negotiations. One cannot do that now. A very good moment for dialogue with the Government would be when CPTPP was considering whether to open negotiations. It seems that three months after the passing of the Act, one simply does not know. I add, on a personal basis, that I do not think that six negotiations will start in the foreseeable future. The applications of three of these countries pose serious political problems. In one case, there will be an enormous change to the nature of the CPTPP if the accession took place—a change that I think would be undesirable and, I believe, a majority of members think would be undesirable. There are, however, two other cases where considerable political problems arise.

Setting early deadlines and calling for the Government to go public with their analysis, which would in fact present the Government’s negotiating position, would be unwise. I do not think that we should ask our Government to go on the record in advance about a hypothetical negotiation which, in my view, in three of the six cases is unlikely to start in the foreseeable future. The Government would not be wise to act on that requirement, so I hope that they will resist that requirement—or, rather, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will have second thoughts about Amendment 32.

Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Americans are always very surprised that we get by without a written constitution. That we could create a Supreme Court and lose the Law Lords from this House without any sort of supermajority or national consultation, merely by votes of these two Houses, baffled them. I have always been against a written constitution and feel that the arguments against it grow with devolution.

The difficulty posed by a written constitution, once you have got one, is that of amending it when new circumstances arise. If we had a written constitution in this country now, with devolution where it now is, we would be like the United States in 1787: we would be obliged to make sure that there was at least a majority of the constituent parts of the kingdom in favour of the change. If the majority was a simple majority, with three to one in favour, we would have a recipe for difficulty in the future. If it was four to zero, we would have a recipe for deadlock in the future. Although I have been inveighing against the Government for being a little over-flexible in their approach to constitutional change, flexibility is a good thing and I am therefore against the amendment.

I served the convention in an official capacity and three Members of this House were genuine members of that convention. They would all have believed that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is correct and that we should have a convention on this, so having me working for them did not turn them absolutely off the idea of a convention. The worst mistake we made—I can say that I argued against it—was what we called our product, which was a draft treaty between individual nation states and began with listing the signatories to the treaty, such as the King of the Belgians and so on. On the title page, we wrote that it was a “Draft Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe”. That was a great mistake, because it was not; it was a treaty. The idea of a written constitution for Europe was offensive to quite a few people. It was a terrible mistake. Flexibility is, on the whole, a good thing—though it can be carried too far, as recent events in this country have shown. Therefore, I speak against this amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that the Labour Party has a position on this. However, as it has never called for a written constitution, I am going to take it that the Labour Party is against a written constitution—or at least, I am. As I said at Second Reading, I had a lovely cartoon from the New Yorker showing bewigged, 18th-century gents writing the American constitution and then putting at the end, “And no one will ever alter this”.

I do not support my noble friend on this amendment. However, had he used the word “concordat”—something to get the relationship between the two Houses agreed, which in some sense goes to what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said earlier about function; that we should agree what the role of the two Houses are—I would have thought that this was a brilliant amendment. The idea of us having that serious conversation is one that I absolutely support. There are really big questions about that. It is not just about whether we get to vote on statutory instruments. It is about the relative roles in that and how often it is used. Particularly when we think of our size, if we become smaller and still have no retirement age, we will have an increasingly older and smaller group of people doing that diligent work on statutory instruments. Those are important discussions. I like one part of the amendment, which is to give some serious thought as to the function of both Houses. But please, while we may not be bewigged we should not be setting in stone the way in which we work in the short term.

Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, in an hour of debate—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I want to say just a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said against the notion that this is purely House of Commons business. That must be wrong. For example, it would be very useful to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, believes that the judicial procedure he has set out consisting of two judges who will consider cases of parliamentary misconduct would be confined only to allegations of parliamentary misconduct at the other end of the corridor. That seems to be rather illogical and therefore his amendment is absolutely our business. Of course, he is proposing the amendment, so he will not agree with that.

The amendment is extremely dangerous for all the reasons that have emerged, and particularly the first reason, which was so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I have to say that I think that the Bill as a whole is extremely dangerous even as it is. Mine is the Burkean principle. Members of Parliament are sent up not to represent the views of their constituents, but to exercise their judgment. They are chosen on the quality of their judgment, so for all those reasons the Bill is defective.

The only speech in this debate which has surprised and disappointed me was that of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, for whom I have enormous respect. I think that he has been lunching too often with that chicken.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I support the amendment. I got a very dusty answer in Committee, and I do not really agree with most of the arguments against the amendment. If you start from first principles and the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, in my view this does no harm. Moreover, it is only an enabling measure; it does not change anything. It creates a power to change things, which, to me, makes it seem rather modest. Having a single constituency or two constituencies for expatriates is an extremely good idea in my view, but I suspect that it might be found to be not relevant to this Bill, which would be shocking.

I feel that I have not yet heard a compelling argument against this power. I am encouraged that it is supported not only by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, but by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, who is a great expert in these matters.

On the question of electoral fraud, where it would be prosecuted and how the miscreant would be brought to justice, I agree that that might be quite difficult to do if we were rash enough to opt out from justice and home affairs and the European arrest warrant.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I hope that the noble Lord did not hear what I just said to my noble friend, which was, “He’s wicked”.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for bringing the amendment to the House. His commitment to this is clear. Having worked abroad, I can say that it is always very nice to have someone speaking for us, as it were.

As we made clear in Committee, the Opposition do not support the amendment. We remain unconvinced that those who left these shores 20, 30 or more years ago should continue to vote for a Government under whom the rest of us pay our taxes and live with the consequences of our vote. Those people will not live with the consequence of theirs.

However, I want to stress another consideration which I raised in Committee. Should this extension go forward, such non-residents would then also be able to continue to make unlimited donations to UK political parties. By being on the electoral register, they are also categorised as permissible donors to a political party. The previous Government, in the light of ongoing concerns about overseas funding of our politics, passed the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Section 10 of the Act prohibits a registered party from accepting a donation of more than £7,500 in any year from a UK national living abroad and on the electoral register, unless they become resident in the UK and pay UK income tax. Sadly, however—and I think wrongly—this section of the Act has not yet come into force and the coalition Government have indicated that they have no intention of bringing it into force. Perhaps the Government would like to take a moment to announce a change in their view on this, in which case we would be up and ready to welcome it immediately.

However, as that provision has not been brought in, it means that all those UK nationals permanently living abroad would be allowed to give donations to our political parties, because the test of whether an individual is a permissible donor is whether they are on the electoral register. Therefore, if overseas electors were able to stay on the register for longer than 15 years, they would remain permissible donors for as long as their wealth held out. For this reason—if for no other—we could not support the amendment.