Trade Bill

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

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

Lastly, on Amendment 69, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I was absolutely astonished to find that one of the new conditions that my noble friend wishes to impose on a trade agreement is not lowering marketing standards for agricultural products. I really do not think that we need to protect the sizing of kiwi fruit and tomatoes; that is the least of the concerns. To set that up as an insuperable hurdle to a trade agreement is to lose all sense of proportion.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]]

My Lords, before I start, I should apologise for any noise that may interfere. There is a demonstration outside and every now and then, the volume increases.

There are a number of amendments in this group on a broad range of environmental protections. I do not intend to speak to all of them, save to say that I support them and hope that, on Report, the movers can work together to amalgamate them satisfactorily. I will, however, single out Amendment 40 which provides for the laying before Parliament of a report assessing the impact of our environmental obligations. That will be very important.

I am going to spend the rest of my time speaking to Amendment 21, to which I have added my name. In 2015, to those of us for whom climate change represents a real and looming existential threat, the Paris Agreement was received with relief. It commits Governments to submit their national plans to cut emissions and ultimately, each party to the agreement will have to do their bit to keep the rising global temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade and to pursue efforts to limit it further, to 1.5 degrees centigrade. International agreements are initially signed to signal intent to comply but become binding only through ratification, so it is a worry when Governments do not ratify. Seven countries have not yet ratified the agreement: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, South Sudan and Eritrea.

Turkey stands out as the only member of the G20 not to have formally endorsed the deal after Russia ratified it in October 2019. Turkey is a member of the OECD, with high economic ambitions. It has very good renewable resources and therefore the potential to reduce emissions quite significantly; and yet, it still plans massive expansion of coal-fired power stations. Turkey’s emissions increased by 135% between 1990 and 2016. This cannot go on: it really must join the rest of the G20 and signal its intent to move ahead on this agenda.

I turn to the US, which is the second largest emitter after China, accounting for 13% of global emissions. The US is still on the UN list of the original 187 countries to have ratified. However, as my noble friend Lady Northover said, it began the procedure to withdraw from the accord in 2019 and will leave on 4 November this year, I believe. President Trump remains a climate change denier. No one knows what the US elections will bring, but one thing is for sure: a Biden presidency will put the world on a much safer trajectory. Let us hope that it happens, and that it is not too late for action subsequently.

In the meantime, let us make Britain’s values and priorities clear. Action on climate change is not a “nice to have” option: it is an imperative. If, next year, we are to have a successful outcome to our presidency of COP 26 and a successful presidency of the G7, we must refuse to do business with rogue states. That sounds harsh, does it not? But if I were referring to Russia or China, one would not recoil at such a statement. The fact is that we cannot tackle climate change, halt species loss and save our oceans if we have double standards.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I begin by addressing Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton—ably introduced by him—to which I was pleased to attach my name. Looking at this, I cannot but think of the many wearying social media debates I engaged in about how our membership of the European Union did not stop the bringing of disastrously outsourced public services back into public hands. But that is now all history. I think all sides of the House can agree about what won the 2016 referendum. The result was a clear direction from the public on this, if not much else: take back control. That must surely apply, as a matter of priority, to public services. I look back to the 2012 Olympics, an age ago now, but it is hard to forget the G4S security fiasco, when the Army had to step in. That is what has now happened with our railways: the control that the public has long been asking for. I recall that, even in 2015, a majority of Conservative voters wanted to see our railways run for public good, not private profit. It is what should happen with the disastrously underperforming, privatised, national Covid test and trace system. The private sector can always walk away. It makes a mess and leaves the public sector to pick up the pieces. The service users suffer, the providers are loaded with debt, the public pay more and a few walk away with the profits, usually stashed in a handy tax haven.

Given the rigid ideology of the Government, I will not even ask the Minister to agree with me, but I will ask him to agree with the idea of democracy, of keeping options open, including the option to take back control of public services. It is a legal principle that one Parliament cannot bind future ones, but locking us into trade deals where a country has given its word does, presumably, have that effect under the rule of law. The amendment does not force the Government to do anything, despite the obvious public good of bringing public services back into public hands. It does prevent the closing down of democratic decision making: it keeps control. I invite the Minister to tell me why keeping our options open is a bad idea and to support Amendment 13.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has ably laid out the detail of Amendment 51, to which I was pleased to attach my name alongside those of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox. There is little doubt that, of all the elements of the Trade Bill, protection of the NHS has attracted the greatest attention. As many Peers have already reflected in the Committee, this is a reminder that trade Bills are of far greater public interest and concern now than they were when this House and the other place last considered them. It is a powerful path for the argument for new systems of oversight equal to those our MEPs enjoyed and the US Congress regularly utilises.

I recall taking part in a march in 2014 with the group called 999 Call for the NHS. It started in Jarrow, following in famous footsteps, although I only walked the Luton to Bedford leg. We stopped for a comfort break at an establishment along the route. A young man behind the bar asked: “Why are we suddenly so busy?” We told him: “We are marching against the privatisation of the NHS.” He said: “What? It still says NHS above the door of my doctor’s surgery.”

Of course we know that that is not true: there is significant privatisation already. To cite just one statistic, 13% of in-patient mental healthcare beds in England are privately run. In Manchester, patients have a 50:50 chance of being admitted to a privately owned hospital and a one in four chance of the bed being provided by an American-owned company. We have lost control in significant areas of the NHS. This amendment makes sure that we can take it back and not lose further control.

Finally, I will refer briefly to Amendment 75. We have yet to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and I look forward to her explanation, but my eye notes with approval the amendment’s provision against the use of investor-state dispute settlement procedures—another great threat to public democratic control and decision-making and something that the Green Party has long campaigned against. Protection of access to generic affordable drugs and preventing excess windfall profits for pharmaceutical companies: I cannot see anything not to like in this amendment.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 75 in my name. Intellectual property rights, if governed badly, can result in monopolies and unethical practices, particularly when it comes to pharmaceutical companies and medicines. In recent years, these practices have become more commonplace. Indeed, the NHS’s spiralling drugs bill led even the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, to recognise that pharmaceutical companies are trying to, in his words, “rip off taxpayers”, and that big business must be more socially responsible. Something must be terribly wrong. In an interview in the Times, he condemns profiteering on products that rely on government-funded research and NHS patient data.

In the UK, high prices have put pressure on national health budgets and led to the rationing of treatments—for example, on breakthrough medicines for hepatitis C and cancer. There are also significant delays for cystic fibrosis patients to get access to the drug Orkambi given the unaffordable price that the pharmaceutical company Vertex was demanding. It took years of stalled negotiations between NICE and Vertex and the threat of a compulsory licence to push Vertex to lower the price. In the meantime, 200 people died. The breast cancer drug trastuzumab—I hope I said that correctly—is unavailable to the vast majority of women across the developing world because Roche holds multiple patents on the drug in South Africa, blocking biosimilars from being sold in the country until 2033. This is despite the fact that trastuzumab is included in the WHO’s essential medicines list.

These and other examples of unethical pricing regimes by pharmaceutical companies prompted me to put forward my Amendment 75. It aims to ensure that a Government’s right to use internationally agreed safeguards—such as they are in medicines—to protect public health, with a particular focus on securing access to less costly generic medicines, is not undermined or restricted by international trade agreements to which we are a party.

The amendment is rooted in the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, which is a binding international human rights treaty that we in the UK ratified in 1976. The ICESCR ensures the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including—and this is the part that is pertinent to the amendment—the right to the highest attainable standard of health. What Government would not aspire to the best available healthcare for their citizens? But whether they would want that or not is immaterial; if they are a party to the ICESCR then this is a statutory duty that they owe their citizens. That is the point of the amendment. It puts on the face of the Bill something that is not just nice to have but that the Government are already committed to and should be proud of: to proclaim their commitment to the highest standard of health for all their citizens.