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

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Greg Hands

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The Government’s position is unchanged. It is always the desire of the Government, as expressed by the Secretary of State in writing to the House and to the right hon. Gentleman as Chair of the Select Committee, to urge and to ask for there to be a debate, but that will always be subject to the availability of parliamentary time. In a little bit, I will discuss the opportunities that there have been to scrutinise the CPTPP, which have been manifold in recent years.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will give way a little later.

The Act makes no distinction between bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral treaties. In addition to Parliament being able to make its views clear through the CRaG process, let me remind the House that, as a dualist state, any legislation necessary to implement the treaty—such as alterations to tariffs legislation, to take a hypothetical example—would need to be fully scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way. It is the long-standing policy of His Majesty’s Government not to ratify international agreements before all relevant domestic legislation is in place. Were Parliament to refuse to pass any necessary implementing legislation, ratification of an agreement would be delayed.

I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) for their opening speeches. Both are strong supporters of the UK joining the CPTPP. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, who is the former Secretary of State, initiated these talks back in 2017 with me at his side, and successive Secretaries of State have given maximum priority to doing so. I am now in my fourth stint in this role, and it is fantastic to see his and my vision in 2017 now nearing fruition and being very close to UK ratification.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I know that Parliament is perfectly capable of expressing a view on an international agreement and whether a country might join it, and the Government of the day would be very likely to take notice. In debates in this House over some years now, he has made clear his views on trade with China, has gained support and attention, and been effective in doing so. Indeed, he has helped to achieve changes in policy in relation to supply chains in Xinjiang, and I agree with his support for Taiwan —a full member of the World Trade Organisation—as an important trade partner for the UK. We are positive about this kind of debate in the House.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Select Committee, mentioned the scrutiny that there has been in this House for the CPTPP agreement, and he doubted whether there had been four debates. I had a slightly nagging feeling that I may actually remember each of the four debates, so I went back and checked the four debates, which started with the very first one that I responded to in April 2021. There have been four debates in this House and in the other House on the CPTPP. There have also been two oral ministerial statements and 16 written ministerial statements, and five separate Select Committees have taken evidence from Ministers and senior officials on the matter. There has been a Trade and Agriculture Commission report and a section 42 report. This is not an under-scrutinised trade agreement—rather the opposite. As has always been clear, we want the CPTPP to expand to fast-growing Asia-Pacific economies. I also agree with the Auckland principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Labour Government, and he will remember that there are the vagaries of time available. Making an application to say that we would like there to be a debate is not the same as those who run the parliamentary timetable agreeing to there being one.

Let me move on to the new hon. Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan), who made a very accomplished and well delivered maiden speech. He spoke fondly of predecessors whom I know and like, such as Roger Berry and Rob Hayward. He won a keenly contested by-election—I have been to a few by-elections in recent years, and I was grateful to be given a bit of time off and to not go to Kingswood. None the less, I have great admiration for those who win by-elections. I have seen at close hand that they are a different kind of contest.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of his support for free trade and for rewarding hard work, and expressed sympathy for the Government, who have faced the challenges of covid and Ukraine. I agree with him on all of those issues, and the Government do too. I look forward to his continuing the tradition of an independent-minded Member for Kingswood—but please do not tell the Labour Whips Office.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke passionately about trade and CPTPP. He is always probing on those issues.

Various amendments and new clauses that have been tabled ask for additional impact assessments. Before addressing some of those amendments directly, I would like to reassure the House that the Government will publish a biennial monitoring report and a comprehensive evaluation report of the agreement within five years of our accession.

Amendment 1 and new clause 12 would introduce commitments to publish impact assessments on the performers’ rights provisions in this Bill, and I will set out why we consider them to be unnecessary. The impacts of the rules depend in large part on how they are applied in particular cases through secondary legislation made under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That secondary legislation may restrict or extend particular rights to particular countries. Wherever the Government intend to make significant changes to the secondary legislation, we will engage with affected industries and carry out an impact assessment. The Intellectual Property Office has done that recently with its consultation and its assessment of the impact of potential secondary legislation on the broadcasting and public playing of recorded music. A commitment to assess the impacts of the measures in this Bill is therefore unnecessary, and risks overlooking the effects of the secondary legislation.

I will now turn to new clauses 2 and 6, which broadly focus on environmental and other standards. I can provide assurance that the UK will continue to uphold our high environmental standards in respect of all our trade agreements, including CPTPP. As I have previously mentioned, the Government intend to publish a comprehensive ex post evaluation of the agreement within five years of the UK’s accession, and I can confirm that this evaluation will include an assessment of the environmental impacts of our accession. In addition, the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission was asked to scrutinise the UK’s accession protocol and produce a report. The TAC concluded in its advice, published on 7 December 2023, that

“CPTPP does not require the UK to change its levels of statutory protection”

in relation to the aforementioned areas.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

It is very welcome that there will be a five-year report. Will it include numbers on unsustainable palm oil and rainforest wood to ensure that we are not exploiting more than we are at the moment?

[Greg Hands]

That is exactly the sort of thing that I would expect the report to do. I must say that I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government’s record when it comes to palm oil, because 86% of UK imports of palm oil were certified as sustainable in 2022—up from 16% under the last Labour Government in 2010, when we took office. Deforestation related to palm oil in Malaysia has fallen by 60% since 2012, according to the latest available figures, and we will keep working with countries such as Malaysia to build on that work.

As soon as parliamentary time allows, the Government will be tabling their forest risk commodities legislation under the Environment Act 2021, which will make it illegal for larger businesses operating in the UK to use key forest risk commodities produced on land illegally occupied or used. The Government have confirmed that palm oil products would be included under the regulated commodities. Additionally, I once again refer to the report of the independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which concluded that

“it is unlikely that CPTPP will lead to an increase in palm oil being grown on deforested land”.

Moving on to new clauses 3 and 5, relating to ISDS, the UK’s accession to CPTPP will benefit UK investors. I do not think the Opposition understand how business works. We support British businesses operating overseas. They create jobs in this country—jobs that the Labour party does not seem to like.

Trade Deals: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Greg Hands

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

None of this is new or not on the record. I think I have been even franker to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to her face in Committee meetings, including about her officials, but I will alert her to this because it is a speech that has come from my contemplation today.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not impugning officials at the Department for International Trade in that regard. I am not sure whether he was, but I am sure that he would not want to be questioning the integrity of the officials in the Department. Maybe I misunderstood him and maybe that was not the case.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

No, I think their advice to her was bad. That is my honest feeling. It was not good advice on how she should conduct her relationship with the Committee. It does not need to be like that, because other Committees that I have sat on—and I have sat on many—have had very good relationships with officials. I do not think that the relationship with the officials and the previous Secretary of State was good. I am afraid it is not just about the Secretary of State on this matter.

When I was on the International Development Committee, the relationship was such that we had private discussions and briefings with the Secretary of State every month. They were private, off the record and totally in camera. We would discuss confidential issues relating to development spending—sometimes where it had been misspent or where there were problems. The Committee would then rally around the Secretary of State, the Department and their officials when things were happening. That is the kind of relationship that we need now, and it is the kind of relationship that I think we can have now.

We need to review CraG, and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I also sit on, is doing that now. We need to strengthen CraG and we also need to have the following things, which I will list quickly and then finish. We need to ensure that heads of terms are presented to the Committee and signed off by the House, just like in America, the European Union and most other advanced democracies. We need to have private briefings at every single stage and on every single chapter. That is what the EU and the US get. If it is good enough for them, it needs to be good enough for us. We need to have embedded people in some of the key negotiations. Again, the US Senate has that, and that is what we should be expecting. It is not good enough for Ministers or the Department to tell us that these are confidential discussions. They are in the national interest and they must include the Committee. It is unacceptable for them to think that the Committee is not trustworthy.

We need a proper set of trade commissioners who give impartial advice to the Committee. The Committee needs to be given the resources for a set of sub-committees and staff. The Committee could then look at broad issues and the sub-committees could look at trade-by-trade issues. It is not good enough that the Committee is having to do all the trade-by-trade issues, which means that we are not looking at any of the broad issues in our scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

What I should have said is that the Secretary of State hid behind her officials, claiming that it was their advice that she was following. I hope that that was not the case and I that officials were giving her good, broad advice—I am sure they always do.

[Greg Hands]

Let me take that in the spirit in which it is meant. I think we will agree to move on, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point. I am just saying that Ministers are always responsible for the decisions and actions of their Departments. That is a very good rule for how our constitution works.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made various excellent points about better clarity and better comms. In my experience, there can always be better communication in the world of trade. There is always a huge amount of misunderstanding in relation to trade in general and free trade agreements in particular.

My hon. Friend mentioned outreach, which I will come back to. He also mentioned human rights clauses. The UK has an incredibly proud record—not only on our own human rights, but on the engagement we do around the world. Free trade agreements are not always the best way to engage on human rights—there are often better ways to do that—but we do make sure that, wherever appropriate, human rights are included in free trade agreements. We will certainly engage with all our trade partners on the issues that matter to the British people and the Government, be they human rights or trade union rights.

Energy Update

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Greg Hands

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Member for that question because many consumers, up and down this United Kingdom, are dependent on heating oil. They are off the gas grid and heating oil is the principle means of heating their home. We need to be keenly aware of that, as the Government are.

It is worth recognising that there is a competitive market for heating oil. I often speak with the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association, which is a trade body, and with consumer groups in relation to heating oil. Obviously, prices have risen; they are closely related to the price of kerosene, for example, which has been quite volatile this year.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that households that have an electricity charging point will benefit from the £400 payment, and others will benefit from the payments to the more vulnerable, so it would not be right to suggest that those who use heating oil are not recipients of Government assistance. There is also the £1.1 billion home upgrade grant, through which the Government have committed to improve funding for energy efficiency and clean heating upgrades for those dependent on heating oil and other liquid fuels.

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

Some 60% to 70% of our energy is domestically produced. The price of producing it has not increased at all, so 60% to 70% of the bill increase is theft by the energy companies charging international rates to domestic companies. It is time we had wholesale market reform, to ensure that domestically produced energy is sold at production prices and not inflated prices for fat cats in the City.

May I ask the Minister specifically about the £144 million discretionary fund? Many of my constituents are use remeterage, whereby their landlords have a commercial contract but they are remetered at a higher price and are ineligible for any support. Will the Minister write to councils to confirm that they must offer parity for those people, if they can show they use remeterage and therefore are not eligible for the £400 support?

[Greg Hands]

I might have to write to the hon. Member on the question of remeterage. The £144 million discretionary fund is supposed to be disbursed at the discretion of local authorities, in the right way. I think his question is more about heat networks. In the British energy security strategy, we announced that heat networks will in future be regulated by Ofgem—I say that on the assumption that he supports the Energy Security Bill that is making its passage through Parliament at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman’s point that somehow the UK can declare some kind of unilateral declaration of independence from global energy prices is, I am afraid, simply fanciful. Even Norway, which is one of the world’s biggest domestic producers and almost certainly the largest surplus energy producer in the world, is facing these same challenges of rising domestic energy prices. It is simply not possible for the UK to isolate itself from these global trends. [Interruption.]

Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Greg Hands

Monday 18th July 2022 General Committees

[Greg Hands]

This has been a good-natured and well-informed debate. I did not hear any opposition to the scheme, so I welcome the support of the Opposition parties for what the Government are doing. I will try to answer as many questions as I can. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked why the obligation is set low, but I disagree that it is set low. A £640 million scheme increased to a £1 billion scheme is a 56% increase—quite an ambitious increase.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun tried to pick holes and asked about inflation. Well, I have news for him: inflation is not anywhere close to 56%. I remember back in the 1970s that it did get into the high teens and to 20%, but we are not anywhere close to that, thankfully. He asked whether the scheme should be more ambitious. I remind him that ECO is only part of the help available. We have other Government schemes designed to improve the energy efficiency of homes, which is why this Government have such an excellent record on that.

I have to correct what I said earlier. I said that, in 2010, 10% of homes were rated A to C on energy efficiency. I checked my own notes, and it is not 10%, but 14%, so I may have been doing the last Labour Government a slight disservice. It is not, I am afraid to say, a quadrupling of the number of homes well rated under energy efficiency; it is in fact only a tripling, so I apologise. Perhaps I have been giving too much praise for the Government, but I none the less think that a tripling in the last 12 years is a record to be proud of.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is right that ECO adds to bills, but those who benefit will of course get reduced bills for many decades, which it is important to understand. It is not a simple redistribution from non-vulnerable bill payers to other bill payers. It assists vulnerable bill payers in energy-inefficient homes to get their homes to be energy-efficient, thereby saving them a considerable amount of resources over many years. We are also providing direct help with the £400 energy bills support scheme and other measures introduced by the Treasury this year.

I am glad the hon. Member for Southampton, Test praised the co-operation with the private sector, housing associations, the NHS and local authorities. It is a whole-of-Government effort to improve the energy efficiency of our homes. He said there was an estimated £4 on bills a month, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was correct: the estimate is £37 per annum—about £3 a month. I have said that it is not the only scheme available. We have £6.6 billion deployed over the course of this Parliament on energy efficiency schemes, including the £450 million boiler upgrade scheme, the social housing decarbonisation fund, the home upgrade grant, which I have already mentioned, and the public sector decarbonisation scheme, as well as the VAT reductions announced by the previous Chancellor earlier this year.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is not part of the problem the myriad schemes that the Minister has outlined? For the normal person in the street, who lives in a shared house where part of it is owned by a person in poverty, another part is owned by someone else and another part is rented, it becomes so difficult for people to match these schemes up and get them in line at the right time, particularly when the Government do not issue guidelines on how the money should be spent for months on end. Is it not better for the Minister to go away and think of a universal scheme to start to tackle those problems, rather than this piecemeal effect?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Member raises an important point, but an energy consumer does not have to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the available schemes. The important thing is that the Government provide that assistance, in some cases via energy suppliers, local authorities or social housing providers. If he wants to write to me to suggest which schemes he might seek to abolish in favour of putting it all in one scheme, I would happily receive such a representation.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test said the solid wall insulation minimal requirement should be higher. ECO4 will focus on the least energy-efficient properties and, as I mentioned earlier, we have introduced a requirement for a minimum of 150,000 band E, F and G private tenure homes to be treated. Most of those will be solid-walled homes and we estimate that around 75% of total scheme spending will go towards improving them to band D or better. We believe the current solid wall minimum strikes the right balance between giving certainty to the supply chain and giving them the flexibility to treat homes in the most important way. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown sought a street-by-street approach—an area-based scheme. We expect area-based schemes to happen as installers involved in ECO also deliver under the home upgrade grant, the social housing decarbonisation fund and the local authority delivery scheme. We already know of installers planning to work in that way.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked why the scheme was delayed. It is worth stating that ECO4 is the most significant reform since the scheme began nine years ago. We have had to ensure that it is fit for purpose until March 2026—it is important to get that right. This has presented new challenges in policy design, modelling and legal drafting. As I have already mentioned, however, nearly 33,000 measures have been installed since 1 April and registered with TrustMark. We expect that number to rise by several thousand because, obviously, there is a time lag between installation and registration. That is not a bad rate. This is a scheme of 450,000 households over four years, so that is roughly 110,000 per annum, so the fact that in three months, 33,000 measures have been installed shows there has been no discernible impact on delivery from the change from ECO3 to ECO4.

The hon. Member read us a long chronology of parliamentary questions and the different points he has made. I will never forget in my first year in Parliament when I asked a point of order to the Speaker. I read out a long chronology relating to a then Labour Minister, who had failed to provide an answer. The then Speaker—the glorious late Michael Martin—replied to me with just one word, “Persevere.” That was all he said to me. I will not urge the hon. Member to persevere. I say to him that at the end of that long chronology, he was not actually able to demonstrate that there had been any deficiency, that anybody had been damaged or that any measures had not been delivered as a result of ECO4 coming in three months after the scheduled end of ECO3. We covered it due to the extension of ECO3 and the bringing forward of measures in ECO4. That has been solved, and the hon. Member should join us in celebrating those 33,000 measures that have been installed just in the last three months.

Moreover, by allowing suppliers to overdeliver against their ECO3 targets—referred to as carryover—at least 40,000 extra measures were delivered earlier than they otherwise would have been. We have engaged with energy suppliers, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked about the supply chain.

UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Greg Hands

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, sit on the International Trade Committee and our report outlined the positives in this deal. There were also many things we just could not quantify, because the Government have not given us the figures, or they do not want to do that analysis, so we just do not know how things will pan out in the future. This is the first run at this.

My first point is about the role of parliamentary scrutiny. This is very much the first run and we need to deepen and strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. We have the weakest parliamentary scrutiny of the major bodies that we now want to negotiate with. Japan and the Japanese Parliament will have longer debates, binding votes and a guaranteed vote to accept sections, the European Union will of course be able to have discussions through the negotiations and will vote section by section, and the US will be able to vote section by section on the deal and will be involved in setting up the framework of the negotiations.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

indicated dissent.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister shakes his head; I am happy to send him a constitutional 101 of all those countries, because the fact is that we have one of the least developed parliamentary scrutiny systems. Of course we do, because we have not done it for 40 years and other countries have developed since then, but we do need to develop, and it is no good the Minister shaking his head on these points.

The other thing I would say is that, although I welcome the Department giving the International Trade Committee a two-week head start on these documents, I have here in my hand just one volume of the documents, and three of the annexes never arrived in time and were only given to my office a few days before they were publicly released. It is all well and good, and I understand these are working documents, but that cannot be a continued pattern for how these things work; we need to be involved earlier, and we need to be involved throughout.

On the content of the deal, let’s be honest: many of the clauses we have heard celebrated today are non-binding or worse, or are being exaggerated. The workers’ rights sections are of course all totally non-binding; the climate change sections are non-binding and weak; the women and trade section—a new section—is all totally non-binding in the agreement. There is no section on consumer standards, and Which? says to me that it has not been involved much at all in these discussions. It believes there need to be whole sections on consumer standards, and the agreement fails to do that.

Also, in many areas there are standstill clauses that embed the current system we have in Britain and do not allow change. For example, there is a standstill clause on the Post Office; that means if a future Government wanted to change their mind on the disastrous privatisation by this Government of the Post Office that put money into their crony friends who bought the shares which then zoomed up—[Interruption.] It is true, and we would not be able to reverse that without renegotiating this deal. That is an inhibition of sovereignty, and that is a problem.

This deal is also reliant on the EU deal. If we do not get an EU deal, there are some clauses in this deal that will not be enacted fully; there is also a danger that the deal might be a green light for offshoring many jobs out of Britain, as there will be an EU-Japan deal and a UK-Japan deal. But if there is no UK-EU deal, businesses will place themselves in Japan because they will access both markets from there. If we do not get that EU deal, this deal could be an offshoring charter.

The TRQs are a scraps-on-the-table deal, under which the EU of course gets first dibs and if there are crumbs left—we hope there will be crumbs left, for a few more years anyway, until we sign the CPTPP—then we can get those crumbs. We cannot get the crumbs beforehand of course; and in terms of developing innovation, businesses cannot rely on them because they do not know what amount of crumbs will be left over. We have heard that Government analysis of the EU-Japan deal conducted when it was signed shows that the deal will have a worse economic outcome rather than a better one: there will be £1.7 billion less in exports with this deal than under the EU deal, and £1.6 billion less in GDP with this deal compared with how much the EU-Japan deal was benefiting us. Those are the Government’s figures, not my figures.

There are also some very dangerous elements on data protection, including voluntary agreements rather than binding agreements, not least in areas such as data protection and the NHS. That should greatly worry many people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Greg Hands

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is the potential inclusion of around 70 geographic indicators, 12 of which are from Wales—she is quite right—including Welsh beef, Welsh lamb, Welsh wine, cider, perry, Caerphilly cheese, Carmarthen ham and others. One of our key objectives is to be able to sell Welsh lamb into the United States—British lamb overall is not currently allowed into the United States—but we will be fighting to get an improvement in Welsh lamb exports around the globe.

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

What recent progress she has made in securing the rollover of EU trade agreements with non-EU countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Greg Hands

Thursday 23rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

We are guided by a desire to seek continuity first of all in our trading relationships with developing countries as we leave the European Union, and that includes economic partnership agreements. Our EPA partner countries have already welcomed that commitment. The UK is of course fully committed to promoting and delivering the sustainable development goals and is the first and only G7 country to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas development assistance.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Given that countries such as Nigeria and Uganda have refused to sign the economic partnership agreements because they do not believe that they are beneficial and in their long-term interest, how does the Secretary of State intend to address those issues, and is he considering GSP—the generalised scheme of preferences—or GSP plus?

[Greg Hands]

We have already announced that we will be transitioning the full preference scheme of the European Union, including all the categories; that includes GSP and GSP plus. I am surprised if the hon. Gentleman is opposed to our transitioning the EPAs because, as you well know, Mr Speaker, UK imports worth around £290 million from the developing world were imported last year using the EPAs, and they would otherwise have had to pay a higher tariff to enter the UK.