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

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Lord Curry of Kirkharle

Report stage
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 12 tabled by my noble friend Lady Willis. I also very much support Amendment 10 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and support her comments this evening.

As I mentioned during earlier stages of the Bill, I have been extremely concerned about the potential impact on domestic food production of the various trade deals that the Government have negotiated. Of course, it is vital that we negotiate trade deals that encourage reciprocal trade and benefit the economies of those involved. We absolutely need to do that. We in agriculture need access to global markets to have the opportunity to expand the range of excellent food products produced here in the UK. I fully respect the fact that other partners to this agreement expect access to our markets.

We are not afraid of competition. We have some of the most efficient farmers in the world, but competition must be fair. I am reassured by the Minister, in his opening statement this afternoon, that domestic standards will not change and will not be weakened. I thank him for that confirmation. However, that is not my primary concern. For those not close to the world of farming, let me explain what is currently taking place.

Farmers are about half way through a seven-year transitional period which involves the most radical shake-up of agricultural policy in over 70 years. All direct support is being removed, so that within about three years there will be no direct subsidies. Farmers will have to survive unsubsidised in the marketplace. Any future support will change to incentivise farmers to deliver public goods, mainly environmental outcomes, which is very appropriate in the light of climate change, loss of habits, et cetera. However, for farmers to survive and trade successfully in a very competitive global market, it is essential that competing businesses are able to operate under the same trading rules.

As has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lady Boycott, within this CPTPP agreement are countries where over 100 chemicals are used that are banned here in the UK. Not only does this represent a serious commercial disadvantage for UK farmers: we have to believe that they are banned for good reason. They were harmful either to ecosystems, or to people. I am sure that exporting partner countries will give us assurances that food commodities and products sent to the UK will conform to our high standards. However, it will be impossible to audit the myriad production systems to verify that this is the case. Therefore, this amendment is necessary to protect ourselves from potentially harmful chemicals and our farmers from unfair competition. It is important not only that our standards are not diluted but that we set international standards that are applied within this important trading partnership. We have an opportunity here to demonstrate global leadership, and we should seize it. The same principle applies to animal welfare standards and to our commitment to deliver higher environmental standards. I hope that the Minister will accept the principles behind these amendments.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, this group is the meat of Report. We have eight amendments in this group, and many have been ably introduced and explained. We have had detailed debates on all these issues in Committee, so there is no need to rehash all the arguments. I have tabled two amendments in this group and added my name to two others. I thank the Minister and his officials for making themselves available for discussions both before Committee and before Report. I will concentrate on the four amendments to which I have put my name. To be clear, like others, I am seeking commitments from the Minister on the quality, detail and depth of the impact assessment that the Government have committed to. We will listen to his response. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, said he was seeking meaningful reassurances.

Impact assessments are a good thing. Understanding the effects of any new settlement, both the positive and the negative, is a sensible way of learning the lessons, especially as CPTPP, although small in the scale of trade, is varied in terms of the countries involved. Impact assessments on ISDS, animal welfare, pesticides, commodities, workers’ rights, forestry and public services are therefore vital tools in understanding the successes and failures, the winners and losers, of this deal. If the Minister truly believes in the CPTPP and is confident that its impact will be wholly positive, surely he will have no problem with this undertaking.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment 13 deals with labour standards. The basis for this amendment is very straightforward. Unions both here and abroad have deep concerns about the inadequacies of the labour chapters and the fact that the agreement would consider an infringement of labour rights actionable only if it is proved to have a deleterious effect on trade. The fact that many of the countries we would be joining do not comply with even the most basic ILO standards compounds this structural problem. Indeed, with regard to the eight ILO conventions, Brunei has ratified only two and Malaysia and Singapore only five each. Five of the 11 CPTPP nations have not ratified the convention on the freedom of association. In Mexico, for example, companies regularly engage in union busting and in Vietnam, union leadership is often controlled by senior management. It is important to note that no CPTPP Government have ever challenged another over labour rights violations. We are concerned that not only does lowering the barriers to trade with these countries encourage the continued abuse of workers globally but it could undermine the protections we have here for the sake of competitiveness.

The other reason for this amendment is so that we can assess the potential negative effects on UK businesses. We have heard this from a number of noble Lords. None of us wants to see the undercutting of UK manufacturers and producers by forced labour or breaches of labour standards. We are all aware of the US pausing imports of goods where forced labour was used.

Amendment 14 deals with the impact of the procurement chapter on UK public services. Many have raised the issue that the negative list approach to service listing in the CPTPP could expose the NHS to further privatisation. The ratchet clause as well as the ISDS provisions could preclude the Government taking services back under public control if it affected a private business’s profits. The Government have argued that the NHS will never be on the table, but it is hard to see how that can be true if they have made no effort to take it off the table. This amendment calls for an impact assessment to monitor progress in this area.

Amendment 9 deals with the ISDS—investor-state dispute settlement—provisions in the agreement. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton explained this in detail. Many other noble Lords have rightly highlighted this issue in particular. Given that the Government, by implication, agree that the ISDS provisions are outdated and dangerous by signing side-letters with Australia and New Zealand to preclude their use, it seems strange that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade would reject calls to do a similar deal with Canada, a particularly litigious member of the CPTPP, as many US businesses can testify.

It is vital, therefore, that we monitor the effect that ISDS has on our standards, and that is why an impact assessment is so important. My noble friend Lord Davies called for a close review, and he is correct. He also noted the chilling effects on government decision-making, which relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about Governments making decisions because they are concerned about their sovereign policy-making being affected by other businesses.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Lord Curry of Kirkharle

Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot support Amendment 82. I very strongly support the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Fox. The defence of reasonable chastisement was created to stop parents being prosecuted for assault when they did not deserve to be prosecuted. If a parent hits a child in a way that causes any kind of mark—the CPS would say anything more than a transient reddening of the skin—then they have used unreasonable chastisement and can quite properly be prosecuted. The reasonable chastisement defence helps to ensure that good parents do not find themselves accused of being a child abuser for doing something perfectly gentle and humane. This defence therefore exists, first, to keep children safe and, secondly, to protect loving, decent parents. The current law does not need amending; it achieves the right balance. Who, after all, wants to criminalise reasonable behaviour?

Friends of ours had a child taken from their family by overenthusiastic social workers, quite wrongly, which caused enormous distress. It was because of an unexplainable bruise. I expect that most of us experienced reasonable chastisement when we were children. In 2017, a ComRes poll found that this was the experience of 85% of adults. If reasonable chastisement was so harmful that it deserved to be criminalised, you would expect eight out of 10 adults to manifest the same symptoms as children who have been abused. But of course they do not. How many of us whose parents loved us, cared for us and taught us right from wrong think our childhoods would have been better if our parents had been prosecuted merely for giving us a well-deserved smack on the bottom? That is what this amendment would mean for families today.

Parents know their own children. They are best placed to judge whether a tap on the hand of a toddler who has resisted all other blandishments is the right call. I would strongly challenge the assumption that every parent who smacks their child should be described as hitting and violent. None of us approves of such actions. Parents have a huge range of tactics and strategies at their disposal to help their children grow up into kind, diligent adults: gentle instruction, words of praise, the naughty step and withdrawing privileges. But for many parents, reasonable chastisement sometimes fits the bill. Who are we to make criminals of those whose parenting philosophy differs from our own on this point?

For every person who claims that such common-sense parenting is damaging, we have thousands of sensible parents living in the real world who are convinced otherwise. Opinion poll after opinion poll shows that three-quarters of the public do not want to expose parents who use reasonable chastisement to the full force of the criminal law. This amendment is neither necessary nor wanted by the public. We should not use the criminal law to enforce political fashions and condemn the mums and dads of today for making the same decisions that many of us have made. We must let parents decide for themselves. Common sense should not result in a criminal record, and that is not an alarmist statement.

Last year, as we have been told already, Scotland passed a law banning smacking, while telling critics again and again that removing the reasonable chastisement defence would not result in parents being criminalised. Yet less than a month before the ban came into effect, the Scottish Government published advice telling members of the public to dial 999 to report a crime in progress if they saw a parent smacking their child. We are only months into the implementation of that law in Scotland, so we must wait and see what happens once the authorities begin to enforce it in earnest. So far, there is a lack of evidence that criminalising parents has reduced domestic abuse in countries that have introduced so-called smacking bans.

Instead of attacking good parents we should be reassuring them of our support, especially after the challenging year that families have experienced. There would be a real danger in including this amendment in the Domestic Abuse Bill. Loving parents are not domestic abusers and it is insulting to suggest otherwise. A gentle tap on the hand to discourage a persistent two year-old from putting their finger in every plug socket they encounter is not child abuse but responsible parenting. Abusive parents are already caught by the law, but this amendment would task police and social services with targeting not abusive but loving parents. It would be a serious mistake.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, we shall now hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Lord Curry of Kirkharle

Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage
Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords in the Chamber to maintain social distancing for everyone’s safety. I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, whose commitment to HS2 is very well known. I must say that I am impressed with his tie. I have a pair of socks which I clearly need to donate to him to match. As the noble Lord has mentioned, I have the honour of being a member of a commission which was established by the North East LEP and which was chaired by the noble Lord about five years ago. It was a revealing exercise even for someone like myself, who has lived in the north-east all my life.

It is almost slightly irritating for those of us who live in the far north of England—the north-east or the north-west—that, when viewed from London or the south-east, the north begins somewhere north of Nottingham and stretches to Sheffield and Manchester, while the vast area of England beyond that disappears into a fog and is too often regarded by those who live there as being neglected and ignored. This is the case with the existing plans for HS2. I have never regarded HS2 as just an attempt to deliver passengers from Euston to Birmingham 15 minutes earlier than is the case at present, but as a necessary investment to increase the capacity of the rail network. It is essential that the increased capacity planned is extended further north, beyond the current plan.

The north-east has some interesting and contrasting economic features. On the one hand, the region has one of the highest, if not the highest, proportion of GVA being exported of any English region, thanks to some very large companies such as Nissan. On the other hand, the north-east has some of the lowest indices in England, whether it be unemployment, average income levels, many social indicators, productivity and so on. For all these reasons—whether to support existing successful businesses or to help level up and address the long-standing economic and social issues—we need a commitment from Her Majesty’s Government to extend HS2 from the West Midlands to Leeds, as this amendment suggests, so that Yorkshire and the north-east can look forward to improved connectivity to assist in economic growth and address many of these long-seated social problems.

We all welcome the Government’s relatively recent announcement to invest in a whole range of infrastructure projects in the north. Many of these have been on our wish list for decades and are an important start to address the levelling-up commitment of the Government, but there is a very long way to go to satisfy the residents of the north of England. Supporting this amendment to extend HS2 would be a further, and very important, welcome step by the Government; it would show that they are committed to supporting the north and delivering an integrated rail network, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has very effectively outlined. It is essential to improve access and assist in delivering economic growth. I do hope that the Minister will change her mind and accept this amendment.