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

Lord Foster of Bath Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who, like a number of previous speakers, have thanked the new Foreign Secretary for posts to which he appointed them. I, too, wish to say my grateful thanks to the new Foreign Secretary for posts to which he appointed me —but I remind him that, on one occasion, he specifically required me to work alongside Michael Gove.

I genuinely welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new post and congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. I suspect that I am right, although perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, that, despite all his years in the other place, this is the first time that he has ever led for the Government in introducing a piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that we have mixed views about—but certainly, as others have already pointed out, because of the inadequacies of our trade scrutiny arrangements in this place, we are being asked to look at a small piece of legislation that will enable the implementation of a very large trade deal, with which your Lordships’ House has not had a real opportunity to engage.

In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, we have not had the opportunity to all buy into the deal, and we are having to do it in the absence of some quite important information—information, for instance, that would be contained in the report to which the excellent chair of the International Agreements Committee has referred. We have not got access, because it is not yet ready, to the government-requested report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission. We are short of information, yet it is sadly one of the few opportunities that we have to debate the CPTPP, its processes and outcome, because we have this one Bill to look at.

As others have pointed out, on these Benches we are well aware that there are some benefits of the deal—particularly some significant geopolitical benefits, I would accept. But notwithstanding the rhetoric of major economic benefits, or the optimistic predictions of our new Foreign Secretary, the figures on the economic benefit show that it is very limited. After all, it was the Government’s own figures, as we have heard, that show that the increase in GDP will be only 0.1% of GDP—and I remind other noble Lords who earlier said that it was 1%. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reminded us, that is up to a period up to 2040, so it is taking into account all the potential growth that would take place in the region. After all, it is a tiny fraction that we will get back in comparison to the 4% loss of GDP because of our exit from the European Union.

As we have heard, there are many concerns about the deal, such as on weak provisions on labour rights, which some argue could lead us to importing goods made by exploited labour. However, to echo my noble friend Lord Razzall, I want to concentrate on the area of intellectual property, with concerns that I raised some years ago, when I served as a member of the International Agreements Committee. The whole House has accepted on many occasions that our creative industries have become the powerhouse of the economy, and intellectual property rights and their enforcement are their lifeblood.

As the CPTPP negotiations began, the creative industries, recognising that other countries in the group with less developed creative sectors would have less concern about IP issues, made a number of recommendations about what the Government should seek to achieve. One such issue, as we have heard, was in relation to the patent grace period, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and by my noble friend. The Government were warned that the CPTPP rules require its members to have a grace period for patents, whereas the European patents convention does not. If we agreed to the rules, it would put at risk the UK’s vitally important membership of the European Patent Office. I am genuinely delighted that the Government were successful in enabling us to set aside the CPTPP grace period provisions—but, sadly, few others of the sector’s asks were achieved. I suspect that that was because we were in the position of being a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker.

When, for instance, we were negotiating with New Zealand for a trade deal, it was between equal partners, and as a result of the pressure we were able to put on, New Zealand agreed to increase its copyright term to 70 years after the death of an author. We had clout in those negotiations. But the sections of CPTPP relevant to copyright term are currently suspended, so, as a start, the sector wanted our Government to press for the suspension to be lifted. However, as the Government had no clout in the negotiations, it was not, so our creators, except where we have bilateral deals, lose out.

In the digital environment, content owners rely on a range of measures to prevent piracy and the resulting loss of economic value, but given that the CPTPP provisions that support these protections are also suspended, the sector again wanted the suspension to be lifted. It was not, so there is no protection of UK content owners in important markets such as Malaysia and Vietnam. The CPTPP has no measures in relation to artists’ resale rights, meaning that UK artists and their estates are unable to receive royalties when their work is sold on the secondary market in CPTPP member countries which have not introduced such a right unilaterally. The sector’s request for the inclusion of ARR went unanswered, and our artists lose out.

Of particular concern is that the CPTPP does not have the same firm view as the UK that creators should have almost exclusive rights on their work, underpinning their ability to generate income. The CPTPP, for example, talks of

“a balance of rights and obligations”

in the interests or promotion of technological advances. This, the sector believes—maybe the Minister could comment on this when he winds up—means that technology and social media companies could have undue influence in determining the reasonable rights of creators; again, there is the potential for those creators to lose out.

So, overall, it is not a good deal for our creative industries, many of which are worried that, by signing up to it, we have indicated a willingness to accept a lower level of protection for copyright than exists in the UK, and that it will set a worrying precedent for future negotiations. Another country might say, for example, “Well, you were happy to sign up to that level of protection with them, so why not with us?”

Clause 5 introduces a further concern, which has already been touched on. It introduces an obligation on the UK whereby foreign rights holders and performers, for works within the UK, would receive payment where they currently do not. That is fine, and one would assume therefore that the obligations will be limited to CPTPP country rights holders and performers. But the Bill as it stands, bizarrely, does not limit this extension to CPTPP countries; rather, it provides for secondary legislation that will, in due course, specify the countries to be covered. Will the Minister confirm that consultation on which countries are to be included is going to take place during the passage of the Bill? Does he at least accept that we are being asked yet again to make decisions without having all the facts, and certainly without knowing what the implications will be?

I hope that the Minister will make it clear in his response that the Government accept that the IP chapter of the agreement, including the suspension of some of the IP provisions, is deficient, is a real cause for concern among the creative industries and, frankly, is not what the UK expects from future international trade agreements.