Trade Deals and Fair Trade

Debate between Geraint Davies and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, that is crucial. There has been some ambiguity over whether we will continue with the European convention on human rights. Ministers have simply said, “We’re still in it,” when questioned. They have not ruled out leaving it, and that is of great concern. If we, as a country, decide on our own definitions of rights and human rights, other countries, such as China, Russia and others, will say, “Oh well, Britain is doing that.” We became a signatory 60 years ago. Winston Churchill was an architect of the convention. It is very important for our standing that we remain a signatory to it.

There used to be a commitment to including dynamic alignment on environmental and labour standards in our agreement with the EU, but that is no longer the case. If those commitments are not given, the EU will consider imposing restrictions based on the presumption that non-alignment might be a doorway to providing uncompetitive trade and an unfair advantage, by undermining rights, the environment and labour standards. I certainly would not want to see that.

International agreements tend to be policed by independent tribunals invoked by investor-state dispute settlements. Those settlements focus very much on the interests of the inward investor, and on any profit that they might lose from the host nation’s introduction of laws and restrictions. Such laws and restrictions are often introduced to protect the host environment, workers’ rights and so on, and such settlements make it possible for a fine to be levied against the host country. The Minister will know of cases such as Lone Pine fracking in Canada, which sued Canada for hundreds of millions of dollars because Quebec decided to have a moratorium on fracking. There are cases of companies suing Mexico on the grounds that it introduced a tax on fizzy drinks to protect people from diabetes. There are cases of such mechanisms being used against Slovakia when it tried to roll back privatisation.

The point that I am making is that such arrangements contain a chapter for the investor that completely overwhelms the balance of power in relation to human rights and the environment. There may be an environmental chapter in some of the agreements, but it will not have the enforceability that investor-state tribunals do. The Government should look at that in order to hardwire labour and environmental standards into trading agreements, and to help to sustain and grow fair trade. It would also be ideal to hardwire the Paris agreement and the convention on human rights into new trade deals. We know that in the US-UK negotiations, the US explicitly wants to rule out climate change and the Paris agreement, and that is of great concern.

I am moving towards suggesting to the Minister that trade agreements should allow states to penalise social and environmental dumping as well as economic dumping. At the moment, under World Trade Organisation rules, most trade agreements allow players to penalise other countries that overtly subsidise and dump products on their marketplace by way of tariffs, and so on, or they allow referral to a dispute resolution mechanism, as I mentioned. They do not include similar mechanisms for social and environmental dumping. I ask the Government to look at such mechanisms to ensure that countries are not undermined by the abuse of human rights and environmental conditions, thereby undermining prices in the market and providing unfair competition.

Some trading agreements include references to some of those things, but they are essentially unenforceable. There are warm words about hoping to look after workers and the environment, but they are not enforceable. When push comes to shove, that leads to disaster, particularly in very poor countries. If we are serious about taking back control when we leave the EU, we need a trade policy that respects the environment, public health, social justice and democracy.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he share the Co-operative party’s concern about the mooted winding up or merging of the Department for International Development? We need it to grow in order to tackle inequalities around the world.

[Geraint Davies]

That point is very well made. This is a critical time, during which DFID needs to be closely engaged in the whole issue of negotiating trade deals. It is helpful for DFID to be separate from the Department for International Trade. We do not want DFID to be absorbed, eliminated, pushed into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or whatever; we want it to be a strong voice in a difficult time as we move forward, so that Britain can be seen to champion these values for others to follow, rather than undermining standards and leading people in the opposite direction.

Coming back to the point about democracy, it is important that we are all in this together, so to speak, by virtue of having democratic scrutiny and a vote on the mandate. The process should be as transparent as is sensible, and then there should be final scrutiny and a vote on the deal in Parliament. That is something that the US Congress enjoys, and democracy in trade deals is not much of an innovation. The US Congress looks at trade deals, and there is public consultation. Of course, the European Parliament also has a vote on trade deals. If we are taking back control, we should have similar or better rights ourselves.