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

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall]

I understand that, but I feel that punching through on this occasion would be the wrong approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Foreign Office’s appetite for us debating these issues in this place should not matter one jot, because it is our right as parliamentarians to discuss free trade agreements and whether they work. Respectfully, I say that the mechanism for ensuring that we get better trade agreements, and can be reassured about their economic value and benefits to the British people and our national security, has to be achieved by upgrading the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) made an excellent point when he referred to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report’s recommendation on enshrining a methodology to ensure that CRaG operates within 21 sitting days, and that a meaningful vote is held at the end of that period. If that were ever to take place, it would be meaningful, because it would delay the signing of any free trade agreement by 21 days.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the need to change CRaG; we mentioned that need in our report. Our report made it clear that a lot of changes do not necessarily need legislation, but they do need a change of approach from the Government. There should be a clear commitment made at the Dispatch Box that debates will always be called when there is significant interest in a subject, and particularly when there are commitments around new accession. If the Government made those commitments, it would be enough, but they are still not forthcoming. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should stand at the Dispatch Box today and give those commitments, so that we can move forward with some certainty?

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Gentleman and I served for a long time on the International Trade Committee, as it was previously known, and I should start my response to him by paying enormous credit to the Secretary of State, who came in front of the Committee a number of times, and who wrote to the Leader of the House to ask for time to debate CPTTP within the CRaG period. I am afraid that my ire and irritation at our not having secured that time must now be focused on the Leader of the House, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say there are simple steps that we can take to make sure that this House is properly briefed on these issues. One of them—I absolutely declare my interest—would be to give Privy Counsellor status to members of the Business and Trade Committee. I do not think anyone would disagree with that suggestion. It would certainly be a very popular move, and when it has been mentioned in the Committee, it has been welcomed with open arms. I am glad that it has the approval of the House. But, in all seriousness, there has to be a set process and the CRaG mechanism allows us that opportunity if done properly. It is there and it must be reformed, regardless of who is in government. It is in the interests of the entire House to amend and implement CRaG.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I welcome almost everything that the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend—is saying, he and I having worked together a lot on this issue, but the reality is that other countries in the CPTPP have arrangements that allow their Parliaments to have deliberations on significant treaty changes and on the incoming of new members. We are talking not about the CPTPP arrangements but about our arrangements for authorising our Government to go ahead and agree. Surely he must agree that it would not undermine the CPTPP if we were to make our own arrangements on how we were to instruct our Government.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Forgive me if it sounds trite to say that I worry about mission creep, but if we did that on this, might we not also do it for the World Health Organisation, or for any other body that might be under suspicion of having some adverse state actor involved in it? I worry about how we go about this. I worry about Parliament always trying to have a say and slowing the process of how our trade agreements are signed and ratified. We need to be efficient and quick in the way we do it, but we must also ensure that we have the opportunity for debate, as we have today in this debate on the merits of the three chapters in the Bill.

I want to end with a parting shot. As has been mentioned by the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we were told that we would have the opportunity to debate the full 30 chapters of the CPTPP within CRaG, and it is disappointing that we do not have that. The Government—the Secretary of State and the Minister—have done an amazing job in engaging with the Committee, but this is a serious disappointment. It lessens the progress that has been made to date on signing new trade agreements and ensuring that this place has a say on our future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Some people claim that that would happen, but others claim that it would strengthen our position. When the EU says, “This is our backstop,” we know that it is not bluffing because the backstop has been set by the EU Parliament. Now, negotiators can say, “Well, we know that that is not really the backstop, because you can go away and cajole your Back Benchers to vote this through anyway,” whereas in other systems, they can say, “I’m sorry, but the Senate will not approve this because the committee is holding my feet to the fire.”

However, there are other ways of doing it. As other Members have mentioned, we could allow the matter to have Privy Council status and meet in camera, to allow involvement in negotiations. In multilateral processes, other Governments embed parliamentarians in their negotiating teams. The Norwegians, for example, embed parliamentarians in their WTO negotiating teams in the day-to-day back and forth. Of course, in Norway, the WTO is dealt with by a different department from bilateral treaties, so there is a slightly different way of negotiating different kinds of deals. We can determine what kind of deal it is from the level of negotiation and whether Parliament is involved. If Norway were dealing with the CPTPP, parliamentarians would be embedded in that process, but if it were dealing with the Japan deal, they would not.

There are granularities of parliamentary overview and scrutiny, but almost all systems have developed them over the past 50 years as trade deals have basically become international lawmaking processes rather than dealing just with trade—they deal with all aspects of our life. However, we effectively paused our processes when we joined the European Union, and we have now reverted to where we were before joining. Although I accept that our process are now in the CRaG law, they have not evolved properly.

Let me address my new clause 2. Around 90% of the world’s oil palm trees are grown in just a few islands in Malaysia and Indonesia. Currently, less than 20% of that palm oil has received certification for sustainable palm oil forestry. The CPTPP will remove tariffs from palm oil. Of course, the aim of removing tariffs is to increase trade, so it seems implausible to say that we do not think it will increase the amount of palm oil in the UK that comes from unsustainable forests. The same could be true of tropical woods. Two of the 11 forests that supply our tropical woods and are identified as in danger are in the CPTPP region, but they have no additional protection.

[Anthony Mangnall]

First, Indonesia is not part of CPTPP. It is also important to note that the Malaysians have introduced a certification and standard for more sustainable palm oil plantation. I am not saying that that is perfection—it certainly is not, there is a lot further to go—but it is a good example of how, by forming a trade agreement through CPTPP, we can raise standards, not lower them.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly sound point. That is why my amendment does not say that we should not join the CPTPP, or that we should disallow it for those purposes. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a monitoring report on the level of unsustainable palm oil and forest products that are entering this country before we join the CPTPP, and to report regularly on those imports. If and when this House, or Ministers themselves, believe that action is needed, the data will be there to prove it. If we do not collect that data, we will not know, and we will be blind to the problem.

The same is true of our obligations on climate change and biodiversity. Personally, I would prefer a stronger environmental section in the Bill, but it is what it is. However, it should be noted that 119 pesticides that are permitted in CPTPP countries are not permitted in this country, 56 of which are considered to be highly harmful to human beings. Yes, we have standards for food, but there are no production standards, and there are no standards for pesticides that are not food-based. The problems with some of those pesticides—the killing of bees and other wildlife—are not just about human consumption: sometimes, those pesticides are banned not because they harm human beings, but because they harm the fauna and flora around us. When we import goods that contain them, they can enter the food chain; even worse, they can enter the animal food chain, which is not regulated by the same food standards and therefore causes huge problems. We need Government oversight of those points to ensure that we do not end up damaging some of our crops through pesticides that we ourselves have banned.

Turning to new clause 3, I am particularly concerned about ISDS. At long last, the Government have agreed that we should withdraw from the energy charter treaty, primarily because in a changing world, we need to make changes to our energy policy to make it more green. Our continual inclusion in the energy charter treaty would bind us to ISDS agreements, which we have seen targeted at a number of European states that have made moves to increase their environmentally friendly sources of energy. That is now a danger to us: even though we have not lost an ISDS case, it is a danger to our future and to policymaking. If we have made that case for energy, I think the same case could be made for almost all our arrangements.

It is useful to note that our agreements with Australia, New Zealand and Japan—all of which are part of the CPTPP—did not include ISDS. In fact, the agreement with Japan included a clause to say that we would not enact ISDS unless we signed or entered into another agreement that includes it, so the very fact that this agreement includes ISDS triggers a number of ISDS courts in other agreements that we have signed, which I think is risky and dangerous. We need a report on the risks that ISDS poses to the UK, because we could have rogue investors who end up taking us to court even if it is against the national interest of the two respective states. Of course, citizens cannot access ISDS—it is not a global court where citizens who have been harmed can seek redress from a Government. Only corporations that have invested in a particular country can do so.

ISDS actually means that corporations that invest into Britain from outside have higher protections than a British corporation that invests in plants here. I think it is totally wrong that a British corporation is more vulnerable to changing policy than a foreign one. It should be a level playing field, but at the moment, a British corporation that has invested here has no recourse to ISDS if policy changes in Britain, but corporations from outside do—the Minister is frowning a bit, so I was just trying to explain the difference. There is also a well recorded chilling effect from ISDS that we must be particularly aware of.

Fundamentally—again, I go back to the thing that we are not meant to mention—under the European Union, at least there were open courts to which we appointed judges. ISDS means secret tribunals that do not always have British judges, so there is a problem there. If we are meant to be taking back control, surely we should be taking power away from secret courts and allowing sunlight to be the justice that we seek.

Apart from the matters covered by the two new clauses I have tabled, I think this treaty is a step in the right direction. We should support it, but I wish the Government had negotiated as well as New Zealand and other countries that sought and won protections that, I am afraid, our Ministers failed to even bother seeking.

World AIDS Day

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. As dark forces around the world try, I am afraid, to withdraw money from programmes that talk in a rational and evidence-based way about sex and reproductive rights, we have a greater responsibility. We must step up, because if we do not, others will not. As the right hon. Lady points out, there are two sides to the coin: providing better sexual health education means that girls stay in school, and staying in school allows them to get better education about their health. Those are both positive things. Both issues need to be tackled together.

Another inequality standing in the way of ending AIDS is the inequality in the realisation of human rights. Some 68 countries still criminalise gay men. As well as contravening the human rights of LGBT+ people, laws that punish same-sex relations help to sustain stigma and discrimination. Such laws are barriers preventing people from seeking and receiving healthcare for fear of being punished or detained. Repealing them worldwide is vital to the task of working against AIDS.

Of the 68 countries that outlaw homosexuality, 36 are Commonwealth countries. The majority of Commonwealth countries are still upholding laws that we imposed and that never originated in the countries themselves. In fact, before British colonialism—British imperialism, I should say—many of those countries had better customs and practices around homosexuality than they do now. These customs and practices are not native to people’s home countries; they were imposed. They should be discarded with the shackles of imperialism, which we all now recognise was wrong. One in four men in Caribbean countries where homosexuality is criminalised have HIV. Globally, 60% of people with HIV live in Commonwealth countries. Collectively, we have a responsibility to tackle that in the Commonwealth. Barriers undermine the right to health: a right that all people should enjoy.

Beyond the human rights implications, the laws criminalising homosexuality also have an impact on public health. LGBT+ people end up not seeking health services for fear of being prosecuted. Those who do seek health services often have to lie about how they were infected. Astronomically high numbers of people with HIV in Russia say that they were infected because they were drug-injecting users; that is widely believed to be partly because of the attitude in Russia that it is better to be a drug-injecting user than an LGBTQ person. Without accurately knowing the source of infections, we cannot accurately run public health programmes to save people. Putting people undercover in the dark, hidden in corners, means that the virus lives on. That is a danger for us all.

In some countries, people living with HIV are at risk of being criminalised even when they take precautions with their sexual partners. That opens them up to blackmail and fraudulent claims from former partners. People with HIV in the UK are not immune to that either, as we have seen in some high-profile cases. We have known for at least 20 years that antiretroviral therapy reduces HIV transmission, and for the past few years we have known that it stops it completely, so there should be no doubt that a person with sustained undetectable levels of HIV in their blood cannot transmit HIV to their sexual partner, and laws should not punish them. However, under Canadian criminal law, for example, people living with HIV can be charged and prosecuted if they do not inform their partner about their HIV-positive status before having sex. The law does not follow the science, and it puts people at risk.

Laws requiring disclosure perpetuate the stigma against HIV-positive people. With the advent of PrEP and with “Undetectable = untransmittable”, the law should now reflect the fact that everyone has a role in protecting themselves against HIV and everyone must step up. The criminalisation of drug-injecting users and sex workers has an equally negative effect on HIV prevention and treatment, as I have outlined, in LGBT communities. In all these areas, a health and human rights-based approach must be taken if we truly want to see the end of HIV.

Beating pandemics is a political challenge. We can end HIV and AIDS by 2030 in this country, but only if we are bold in our actions and our investments. We need courageous leadership. We need people worldwide to insist that their leaders be courageous. That is why last month it was so disappointing not to see courageous leadership from this Government. The UK Government were the only donor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to cut their financial settlement—by £400 million. The fund asked donors to raise their pledges by 30% this year, and almost all the G7 nations—which are suffering economic problems that are, in many respects, similar to ours; as the Government often remind us, this is a global crisis, not a crisis of their own making, although in our view it is a bit of both—increased their amounts. For decades the UK was the leader in the global response to these infections and diseases, but that is no longer the case. When our allies met the fund’s request for a 30% increase, the UK went for a 30% cut from their 2019 pledge.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—my friend—for making this speech; he is an extraordinary advocate in this area. However, I want to put on record the fact that the UK is the third biggest funder of the Global Fund. We have, to date, contributed just under £4.5 billion.

The hon. Gentleman has said that we are leading the way in respect of our health and our treatment, and that other countries are following. This, too, is a commodity that can be traded and given to other countries. It is not always a question of the value of the money that we give, because we can trade skills, research and development as well. The hon. Gentleman knows where I stand on the development issue, but I think it is worth making that point.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman has been very good on development issues in the past, and I think he is right. He has also touched on the discussion about patents and patent waivers. There is a live discussion about how we can ensure that the poorest countries in the world can gain access to some of the frontline drugs. Long-lasting drugs are one of the latest innovations, with the possibility of either an injection or a set of, effectively, implants—I cannot think of the exact term off the top of my head—which would last for up to a month and a half. That is revolutionary, especially for those who have irregular access to health systems. The problem is that these are the most expensive drugs because of the way our patent system works; but they are also the most useful in the parts of the world that are hardest to reach. In the UK, most people have regular access to medical settings and can receive daily pill medication. The UK has not always been the very best when it comes to seeking patent waivers. We have done it in the case of many HIV drugs, but we should consider doing it more widely. That might be a good compromise, but we will then need to step it up.

The UK’s decision on the 30% cut is, in my view, a disastrous decision, which stems from the Conservatives’ 0.5% cap on international development. Rather than considering that amount to be a floor and saying that it is the bottom of our ambition, the Government have said that it is the top of our ambition. Moreover, as a result of their insistence on including the Homes for Ukraine scheme, whereby we are housing Ukrainian people here in the UK, in that 0.5% cap, money is flowing out of the international development Department. International development—internationally spent money—should be 0.5%; that would enable us to fulfil many of our commitments quite easily. The additional aid and charity that we provide should be celebrated, but it should not be detrimental to others. This cut will result in the preventable deaths of up to 1.5 million people, and risk over 34.5 million new transmissions of HIV, TB and malaria. It will no doubt harm our credibility, and I hope we will reverse it as soon as we can.

We in the APPG have the political will to meet the targets set by UNAIDS and the action plans for Wales, Scotland, England and, I was pleased to hear, Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with and challenge the Government in ensuring that they do the same, because it is time we stepped up and pushed for that final mile. When you are at the end of the race, you do not slow down; you speed up. This is a prize that we can win, so let us not allow it to slip through our hands. In the words of the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, let us end the “dither and delay”. Let us end HIV/AIDS today.

Australia and New Zealand Trade Deals

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

The first thing to say about international trade deals nowadays is that they are not just trade deals. They are comprehensive agreements on how countries will co-operate and how they will grow together. They are dynamic deals that will set the future course of the respective countries. They are, of course, very similar to the deals we had with the European Union in many respects, but with less scrutiny, less oversight and less public participation.

That can be more acutely demonstrated when we compare these trade deals with the deals the European Union is busy getting on with now. We can see that the European Union’s deal is much more advantageous to the European side than this deal is to our side. Why is that?

[Anthony Mangnall]

Speak up for this country!

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My colleague on the International Trade Committee says I should speak up for this country, as if I should be some ambassador for the Government, ignore how they are running down this country and only talk about the good things. I am afraid that is not the role of the Opposition and of Opposition parties. What we do is lay out how we would benefit our country if we were in power, and what we would do better for our country where the Government have failed.

Let us talk about things that could have been included in this deal, but were missed—first, food standards. In this deal, animal and food standards are frozen in Australia, because this deal gives Australian producers a competitive advantage. While they will not go backwards, why on earth should they desire to improve their standards above ours? That gives them no advantage. Rather than saying, “We will slowly reduce barriers as you meet the standards that we are getting to,” it says, “You have absolute access to our markets, and don’t worry, you don’t need to change your standards either”—that is, apart from some wishy-washy wording about some long-term desire; mañana, mañana. We all know what those clauses mean: nothing. The only thing that matters is hard trade law, hard tariffs and quotas, and on that, we have been let down.

In fact, when we asked the Australian negotiating teams what they thought of this, they said, “All our red lines were met; we compromised on almost nothing. It is a fantastic deal.” Well, yes, it is a fantastic deal for Australia. If one side has all of its red lines met and the other does not, it is clear who the winners and losers are.

We could have gone further on free movement of people. The extension of our current visa arrangements for the free movement of students from two years to three years is pretty pathetic. Free movement should be afforded to countries that are of a similar economic situation to us—that is why we had free movement with Europe—and that have similar flows. We have similar numbers of people going to Australia and of Australians coming to us. The expansion by only one year is pretty pathetic and will not make much difference for most young people, who already had the right to two years and could extend it in Australia if they worked on a farm. It is pretty miserable and unambitious.

The same can be said for climate change. In the Australia deal, the wording is weaker than, and does not go beyond, the Paris agreement. Australia is a country of similar economic and legal profile, and it now even has a Labour Government—unlike us, but not for much longer, I hope—so why can we not negotiate something better? The clauses on climate change are the kinds of things that we would expect from negotiations with countries that are much harder to negotiate with, such as China or India—countries that are much more problematic on climate change.

Trade Deals: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am delighted that I have been able to secure this debate, and I am particularly grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to talk about trade deals and the scrutiny process that goes with them. I am also very grateful to right hon. and hon. Members, who have heard me pontificate on this subject at great length on a number of occasions over the last two years. I should say that I am a member of the International Trade Committee.

I welcome the Minister back to his position as a Trade Minister. He is a friend and an extremely able Minister, and we are all delighted to see him back in his position, where he so rightly belongs. We very much look forward to working with him, both in Committee and in the main Chamber, where we will, I hope, have more opportunity to debate our trade deals.

I should start by saying that I am universally pro free trade and in favour of the Government’s agenda in the trade deals that they are signing. Our trade agreements have been an absolute litany of successes. Not only have we rolled over 70 trade agreements since our departure from the European Union, but we have signed deals with Australia and New Zealand. There are discussions under way about joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and signing deals with the Gulf Cooperation Council, India and Canada. We have successfully signed a trade agreement with Singapore on a digital partnership basis, which is viewed as the gold standard in digital trade. We have signed a trade agreement with Japan, which is already opening up new markets and setting benchmark rates around digital concepts.

Those are all incredibly important agreements, and they matter because they make a huge difference to our economy, to how the Government interact with their allies around the world and to the businesses in our respective constituencies. They offer each and every one of us the opportunity to trade, to create global harmony and to open up opportunities for those who live and work in the United Kingdom, and those with whom we have signed trade deals. This is an important part of what was promised when we left the European Union, and I believe that we are being extremely successful in tackling the new trade agreements, although there have obviously been a few pitfalls along the way.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

I would be humbled and delighted to do so.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman and I sit on the International Trade Committee, and he is making a very good defence of the Government’s work. We heard in the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill Committee only an hour or so ago—it finished only 20 minutes ago—that British firms bidding in Australia will have disadvantageous terms compared with those of French companies, because the Australian deal weakens the global baseline.

These things are probably technical errors. They are things that were probably overlooked and that I hope are great mistakes; if they are not, someone in the Government should be hanging their head in shame. I think these mistakes would have been picked up with proper parliamentary scrutiny during negotiations, before the deal was signed or even ratified—just as happens in America and the European Union, and just as the French, Germans and most developed countries get in their national Parliaments. The International Trade Committee should be involved in the detail of the work on the negotiations before the text is published in camera, but this Government continue to refuse to allow that.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on literally nothing apart from this point about scrutiny. I thoroughly enjoy working with him on this issue, because there is genuine cross-party consensus about the need for scrutiny. I say in response to him that trade deals are not static. We should not view them as static, because they can evolve and improve. To the point he just made, where there are pitfalls we should look to improve them, and to see how we can develop the agreements in the future. He is absolutely right; had we been given due process when we signed the free trade agreement with Australia, Parliament would have been able to debate this issue at length and we could have rooted out some of the issues before we ratified the agreement.

As we sign all the trade agreements, there is good news to be told, but a cloud has hung over all the excellent work. I want to raise four points—I am conscious that a number of Members of Parliament want to speak—that the Minister might consider and respond to. First, we must ensure that there is a long-term strategy for trade negotiations. We need better clarity. It is clear that the Government have a big appetite to sign new trade deals, and therefore they must consider how they will convey to Members of Parliament, trade bodies and the general public an understanding of their ambition. If we have a long-term strategy, we can at least understand the Government’s direction of travel, and we can scrutinise it to better effect to see whether the goals have been met. I really cannot think that any Member in this room is against the United Kingdom signing trade deals, but we need to understand whether we are meeting those goals and whether the Department for International Trade is improving or worsening in its ability to take on new trade agreements.

My second point is about issues on which our provision would not change in any circumstance, such as human rights. It is essential that there is a standard level of human rights clauses in our trade agreements. There is a moral obligation for us to do that.

My third and perhaps most lengthy point is about something that came into being in 1924, the whole premise and purpose of which was to give us a say over international agreements that were signed. It was updated in the late 2000s by the Labour Government in something called the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which basically said that we would have 21 days to ratify a new trade agreement. Within that, Members would be given time in Parliament to debate and vote on the issue, with a votable motion at the end of the debates. If it were rejected, there would be an extension of a further 21 days before ratification.

The previous three International Trade Secretaries have all affirmed the existence and the importance of CRaG and the need to use proper parliamentary scrutiny to get into the weeds of our trade agreements. In fact, the previous Secretary of State for International Trade said that CRaG provides a sound framework to scrutinise treaties that is less than a decade old. That is of real importance. Successive Ministers, including the Minister who is here today, have talked about the value of CRaG in ensuring that we, as Back-Bench Members of Parliament who are not in Government, can justify the agreements that we are passing and ensure that due process has taken place.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) just a moment ago, the scrutiny has taken place; the value is there for British taxpayers, businesses and residents; and we are signing good deals. Ultimately, if we get these agreements right, we will only get better at this. If Members from all parts of the House are given due process to scrutinise trade agreements, we will only make better and more successful ones.

On 9 February, the Minister said that we have a robust scrutiny arrangement that allows Parliament to hold the Government to account. Let us take the Australia-UK free trade agreement, for which we were not given due warning of the CRaG process starting. There was not enough time for Ministers to come before the International Trade Committee to discuss the terms of the Australia free trade agreement. In fact, the previous Secretary of State was invited eight times and did not attend. When the CRaG process was started, the International Trade Committee had not even had time to publish its report. That is not the way it should be.

Let me make it crystal clear that the International Trade Committee should be given the right to publish its report before the start of the 21-sitting-day CRaG period, to ensure that due process is followed and that Members from across the House can read the report, digest it and prepare to debate and vote on the trade deal in Parliament. Can the Minister guarantee that a Secretary of State will appear before the Committee to discuss a trade deal ahead of our publication of any report on it? It should not be hard for us to secure a Secretary of State to discuss these trade deals of which we should, rightly, be so proud.

The important point, from my perspective, is that I am not asking for a veto. In fact, a vote to delay ratification does not change the terms of an agreement. It just delays it, and sends a very clear message that, should we sign another trade agreement, certain principles and concepts should be thought about again. We have to take that into account. I am not an extremist about the need for Parliament to come in, rip up trade agreements and decide what goes in or out of them. I am simply making the point that we must ensure that we have a say. We must have an opportunity to be constructive in a way that allows us to justify the creation of our trade deals and scrutinise their components.

Compared to other countries, we are behind the times on this issue. America has a more rigorous system. In Canada, Parliament has an opportunity to debate and—in some instances, although not in statute—to vote on trade agreements. Let us catch up with them. Let us justify it, because it will only improve the process.

Commonwealth in 2020

Debate between Anthony Mangnall and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister and wish everyone a happy Commonwealth Day. I know his passion for Africa and the Commonwealth from the inquiries and trips we did together on the IDC.

As the shadow Foreign Minister covering the overseas territories, I want to mention their important role in the Commonwealth while highlighting that five of them—these are not even Commonwealth nations—do not recognise same-sex marriage, and it was this Government who, last year, rejected the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee to make Orders in Council to require them to recognise same-sex marriage. If we cannot get it right for even our overseas territories, one wonders if we have any hope of persuading our Commonwealth friends. I will come on to that in a bit.

The Commonwealth is more important than ever as we leave the European Union in a world in which there is currently a grave lack of global leadership, in which the credibility and relevance of our great international institutions are under daily threat and in which human rights and the rule of law are being disregarded by dozens of Governments and deprioritised by dozens of others. In a world like that, we desperately need global leadership and co-ordinated international action, and that is what the Commonwealth should and can offer.

We desperately need a strong and united Commonwealth to demonstrate to the rest of the world why such institutions are so important. We desperately need a Commonwealth that will defend and promote respect for human rights and the rule of law. If the Commonwealth can do all those things, it will remain a vital force for good in our world and a centre point of Britain’s multilateral relationships, because we see the Commonwealth countries not simply as trading partners but as essential partners in the challenges faced by the world and by each of our nations.

With our common history and common future, the Commonwealth should be about sharing our wealth and knowledge, but we cannot deny that much of that history was not of a common wealth but of the UK taking, stealing and mistreating the countries that form most, but not all, of the current Commonwealth. Although we have impoverished those countries, we cannot change history or rewrite the past, but we can do the brave thing and apologise when we need to apologise and, where necessary, make concerted efforts to improve the lives of those who, by our colonial laws, are still discriminated against or who, by our discriminatory payments, lost out when serving to keep our country safe.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

Rather than focusing on the far history, perhaps the hon. Gentleman might do better to focus on the recent history in which Commonwealth members joined together to sign up to the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, showing that, actually, this is an organisation that is alive and well and working together on matters of great concern.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised recent things because, even as we promote the Commonwealth now, we must be honest about places that have gone backwards, not forwards, over the past year and more in promoting peace, democracy and human rights—places where the Commonwealth is needed even more.

We think, of course, of the current tension in India and Pakistan and the violence in Delhi over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, but we also think of the democratic instability we have seen in Sri Lanka, a country I must have visited more than a dozen times, and in Nigeria and Kenya in recent months and years. We think of the deteriorating human rights situation in Uganda, Singapore and elsewhere, and the dreadful impunity of the regime in Cameroon. We think of the discrimination that continues against the LGBT community in far too many Commonwealth countries. That is the recent history of our Commonwealth. Of course we must celebrate some of the progress that is made, but we must not have rose-tinted glasses when Commonwealth citizens are being discriminated against around the world, their human rights are being denied them and their democratic participation is being taken away. Therefore, it was a missed opportunity when this Government failed to put the issue of LGBT rights formally on the agenda at the CHOGM in April in London. It was not only a missed opportunity, but a dereliction of our historic duty to right our wrong.

To avoid wasting another opportunity, may I ask the Minister what he has done since Britain became co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition in June to make it a priority to persuade members of the Commonwealth to join that coalition? After all, it cannot be right that the ERC, which exists to promote human rights of the LGBT community, currently has just six of the 53 members of the Commonwealth as signatories to its principles—none of the African, Asian or Caribbean Commonwealth countries have signed. If we are not putting pressure on those other countries to join, is it any wonder that they are doing the exact opposite and seeing how far they can roll back LGBT rights in their countries, including via grotesque proposals to punish same-sex relationships with the death penalty, as in Uganda? I have visited that country a number of times and met LGBT activists there, as many Members have done. Even in countries where the laws are not so draconian, the social situation is dire. In Jamaica last year, the global LGBT+ rights all-party group met many activists. How are those activists getting the support they deserve from this Government to overturn our imposed homophobia?