Trade Deals and Fair Trade

Debate between Geraint Davies and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie]

Nor am I, but I am surprised and slightly disappointed that the UK Government’s stated intention is to exclude certain important matters from dispute resolution or arbitration. But—and this is a big but—not all arbitration and dispute resolution mechanisms are the same. Although the SNP will continue to support the inclusion of all the aspects of modern trade deals that I have mentioned, we would be deeply concerned if other future trade deals implemented the one-sided ISDS-type mechanisms that the hon. Member for Swansea West mentioned.

[Geraint Davies]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s speech closely, and I agree with what he is saying. Does he agree that it is imperative that the UK stands up for dispute resolution mechanisms that include social and environmental matters and other areas beyond investment, as a precedent for when the EU—and indeed the UK, which is in a much weaker position—talks to the US or China? The EU will be the future of fair trade globally.

[Stewart Hosie]

Of course I agree with that. It is important that the wide range of issues that form the basis of modern trade deals—not simply tariffs and quotas—are included. As I have said, however, not all arbitration mechanisms are the same, and I would not want one that operated on the basis of the secret ISDS-type schemes that we have seen.

That is primarily because of the potential restrictions that such mechanisms could place on Governments, including the UK Government, in legislating even on public health, for example. To demonstrate, I will give two brief examples of how ISDS-type arrangements are unfair and limit the Government’s ability to act in the interests of citizens. The examples are not new and the information has been around for some time.

In the first case, between 1995 and 1997, the Canadian Government banned the export of toxic polychlorinated biphenyl waste to comply with their obligations under the Basel convention, to which the United States was not a party. Waste treatment company SDMyers sued the Canadian Government for $20 million in damages under chapter 11 of the North American free trade agreement, which included an ISDS-type arbitration scheme. The claim was upheld by a NAFTA tribunal even though Canada had acted to comply with an international treaty—that is quite extraordinary.

In the second case, in April 1997, the Canadian Parliament banned the import and transportation of the petrol additive methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl, because of concerns that it posed a significant public health risk. Ethyl Corporation, the additive’s manufacturer, sued the Canadian Government—again under NAFTA chapter 11—for $251 million, to cover losses resulting from the “expropriation” both of its plant and its “good reputation”. The claim was upheld by the Canadian dispute settlement panel, and the Canadian Government repealed the ban and paid Ethyl Corporation $15 million in compensation.

Those cases involved toxic PCB waste and a petrol additive that was deemed to have an impact on public health. In my view, it is quite wrong and unfair for large corporations to be able to sue Governments simply for taking steps to protect the wellbeing of their citizens, or for enacting public health measures that they believe to be right and fair, and for which they may well have an electoral mandate.

Although we welcome new trade deals, they need to be fair. As has been said, the process of agreeing them needs to be transparent and inclusive. For example, it must formally involve, at all stages, the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations; and approval must be sought from and granted by Members of Parliament. That mirrors the point about democracy that the hon. Member for Swansea West made.

A clear understanding is required that although genuine dispute resolution mechanisms are vital for delivering fairness, free-trade agreements that include secret ISDS-type courts that limit, or appear to limit, the ability of Governments at any level to act in the best interests of their citizens are wrong, unfair and profoundly unacceptable.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Stewart Hosie

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

In many ways, the Chancellor did not disappoint us. We had the self-effacing jokes about spreadsheets and the spun lines about being stronger together, and then it went downhill. There was barely a mention of Brexit—the most momentous challenge facing the UK—and, more importantly, what the Chancellor would do to mitigate the damage that we expect as a consequence. Before I come to that, though, I had very much hoped to welcome a concrete package of measures for the oil and gas sector, and particularly for end-of-life fields; instead, we have been offered an options paper. One of my sharp-eyed assistants told me that that is exactly the same promise as the one made in 2016, so perhaps at some point the Chancellor will actually deliver the paper and set out some concrete measures.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at the moment.

Budgets can sometimes be assessed more by what is omitted than by what is included. I thought there would have been more reference made to the city deals and how important they are for the areas that are negotiating them.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Debate between Geraint Davies and Stewart Hosie

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

Having complete discretion is useful, but the word discretion means that something remains a matter of discretion—these things do not have to be done. The OBR has the discretion to go around looking at whatever it likes, but the amendment is saying something different—that the centrepiece of our economic future is economic growth. That has belatedly been recognised by the Chancellor, as we will see in tomorrow’s Budget, when he will say, “I have done all the tax and spend, but, oh no, everything is going wrong because growth is going down the chute, so I had better belatedly do something about it.” The previous Government had sent us on a trajectory of positive growth, albeit that it was a fragile recovery after a financial crisis. The Chancellor has seen that we are going into negativity, so he has scratched his head and realised that growth has something to do with the public finances.

We have been lambasted by Conservative Members who say that the deficit is terrible and Labour left the cupboard bare. They conveniently forget that, as reported by all the economic forecasters, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, two thirds of the £84 billion deficit came from the international financial crisis. That was not Labour’s fault. When Conservative Members suggest, “Oh, well, we should have had more regulation”, they seem to forget that when we created the Financial Services Authority to introduce more regulation, they said they wanted self-regulation and complained about red tape. In fact, it would have been much worse had it not been for the Labour Government. Furthermore, that regulatory hole in the armoury was commonplace across the globe. That is why Governments in Greece, America, Spain and elsewhere have had problems dealing with the financial deficits they inherited. Obviously, we were more vulnerable to sub-prime debt, as we know because the financial sector is larger in Britain.

Let us get away from the myths about why we have the deficit and deal with the challenge of how to get rid of it. We get rid of it by striking a proper balance between growth, making savings over time and ensuring that the bankers pay their fair share. It is convenient for the Conservatives to say that there is only one way of achieving the task. Instead of having a balanced approach to maximising growth, making the bankers pay their fair share and making credible savings that are realistic over time and would halve the deficit in four years, Conservative Members say, “No. We don’t want to halve the deficit in four years; we want to get rid of it in four years, and we do not want to use growth or involve the bankers. The bankers are our mates after all, so they can have some more money. What we will do is make the cuts twice as fast in just one way—through savaging public sector jobs and services.”

Then, remarkably, growth starts to recede so that the sums no longer add up, as there is obviously an interrelationship between private sector growth and public sector funding. Thus they suddenly realise that they have to do something about growth. The amendment is about recognising that the centrepiece of macro-economic planning and fiscal responsibility is growth. It is all very well for the Minister to say, “Oh well, the OBR will have absolute discretion; it can look at growth if it likes, but if it doesn’t want to, it doesn’t have to.” That is the problem; its eye is off the ball. We need to get the finances in proper balance without destroying communities, which is what Labour Members stand for.

[Stewart Hosie]

If I may take the hon. Gentleman back, he mentioned Greece and banking regulation. Can he explain to the House how the failure of Greek banking regulation had anything to do with the sovereign debt crisis, and what on earth the amendment, which is about a growth mandate, has to do with that?

[Geraint Davies]

I will try and speak more slowly. My point was that the international financial crisis affected all countries’ debt, not least that of Greece. Obviously, it has its own banking system, underneath the European Central Bank. There was a common cause for many of the deficit problems around the globe. It was not uniquely Labour’s fault, as the Government make out. The amendment seeks to clarify the factors that are generating the fiscal future, including growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

No, in Welsh. I was in Dusseldorf, talking on behalf of the Welsh Affairs Committee. This is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. UKTI had been marketing Britain, and various German companies had been saying, for example, “We want to invest in a food and drinks factory. We want these skills and this site, and ideally these grants and these communications.” That would have been put on a computer platform and pulled down by regional development agencies to encourage inward investment. I asked what was happening now, and was told, “All these bids are coming forward for creating jobs in the UK, and the RDAs are not pulling them down because they have been abolished.”

That is a simple example of how the cuts in administration and red tape are stopping quality jobs being created in Britain. The cuts undermine growth and are false economics. To answer the question about where we would cut the deficit, Labour would reduce the deficit by encouraging growth and jobs. I was talking to a business man last week in Swansea. He said, “I run a business. Why are the Government always talking about cuts? If I was making a loss and wanted to cut my costs, I would not sell my tools. Yes, I’d keep my costs down, but I’d invest in sales.” The Government’s position is like paying off the mortgage by selling the furniture, rather than getting a job. That is ludicrous.

That is why growth as the centrepiece of the Office for Budget Responsibility is so important. To release the entrepreneurial spirit and focus it on export-driven growth is the primary aim of Labour, but not of Government Members, who have let down business.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am trying to understand the amendment. To have a growth mandate in the OBR would have allowed it to explain precisely where the £57 billion of cuts every year under Labour from 2013-14 onwards would have come from. Is that correct? The growth mandate would have explained where the £57 billion of fiscal consolidation would have come from. Is that correct?

[Geraint Davies]

I really am speaking too fast, aren’t I?