Trade Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. He is not available at the moment. We will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a sobering fact that, as we discuss this important group of amendments with regard to the UK adhering to international obligations, the European Union has today issued a letter of formal notice on a potential infraction where we have breached an international agreement. That is the backcloth against which we must consider all the groups of amendments to come: how we as a country want to be seen around the world as a nation that adheres to its national obligations. Those on climate change and the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, indicated in opening the debate on this group so well, are obligations that the UK is a party to.

I want to speak first to Amendment 21 in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates who, as my noble friend Lady Northover has said, cannot be here today because he is at a funeral. The amendment is also signed by my noble friends Lord Fox and Lady Sheehan. I shall also address the cross-party Amendment 40 which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Oates but has been spoken to very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am sure that if the noble Lords, Lord Duncan of Springbank and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, had been able to take part in the debate on this group, they would have done so. I am grateful for their support.

I turn first to Amendment 21, which should be looked at in the context of other amendments to Clause 2 to expand the provisions of the Bill to agreements that have been signed as part of the EU and now, going forward, to new agreements. As such, the amendments limit the scope of the use of implementing powers to all agreements only with countries that are party to the Paris agreement. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change deals with greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation, mitigation and finance. As my noble friend Lady Sheehan indicated, the Paris agreement was signed in 2016. As of this year, it has been signed by 196 states, while 189 have become a party to it, with the only significant omissions being Iran and Turkey. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others have said, in June 2017, the US President, Donald Trump, announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement. However, reassuringly for some of us, Joe Biden the Democrat candidate, signalled as recently as Tuesday night that if he is successful in the election, he will seek for the US to rejoin.

Our amendment is perfectly clear and I will show how to some extent it links with Amendment 40. The Paris agreement is now a foundation block for the global effort at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is simply impossible to strip out the efforts to tackle climate change without also adapting trading practices. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has indicated, this is an area where these can be seen in separate lights. It is worth reminding the Committee that low-carbon exports alone in goods and services from the UK in 2018 were worth £5.3 billion. If you add on top of that UK legal consulting, investment products and the UK’s global leadership in arbitration and the City of London with the financial options it offers for sustainability products, we are a world leader in global trade on the environment and sustainability. It is, I think, a simple fact that for the UK to be an independent global trading nation, any deep and comprehensive free trade agreement that we would be willing to enter into should be part of and consistent with our Paris climate agreement.

We have taken this approach as a result of being a member of the EU. If the Government do not consider that we should continue with this, can they explain why not? In essence, the Government seem to be seeking continuity in our trading relationships, but not continuity in the legal framework for climate that we have helped to shape and were a part of in the European Union.

I have in my notes a reminder to reference the fact that Ministers will probably say that they can be trusted, given the continuity agreements that we have signed already, and that it is government policy not to move away from those. But every time the Government say that, in my view it strengthens the argument that if that is the consensus across the political parties, there is merit in making it a statutory function. At a time when the Minister is telling the Committee that we need have no concern about climate change commitments, Liz Truss appointed Tony Abbott as the UK trade commissioner. I shall remind the Committee what I said at Second Reading: in 2017, he told the Global Warming Policy Foundation that

“it’s climate change policy that’s doing harm. Climate change itself is probably doing good.”

I think that the UK approach should be stronger than that.

Until now, the approach has been that, as I have mentioned, the European Union has had in its free trade agreements so far a trade and sustainable development chapter. I want to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He seemed to suggest that this approach, which is set down in European Union law, should no longer be the British approach and that British trade agreements should not have a trade and sustainable development chapter in them. I believe strongly that they should and that it is in our interests that they should. Why will the Government not replicate the approach of maintaining agreements with trade and sustainable development chapters in them? As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, if it comes to the opportunity to enhance agreements, this is the chance to do so because it is the trade and sustainability chapters in the agreements, especially with the least developed countries and those with which we have EPAs, that are the mechanism of dialogue in order to enhance them.

I turn to the United States. I have reflected on what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He seemed to suggest that these amendments would be restrictive. He may be aware of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act 2015 which sets the parameters of US trade policy. Section 2 sets the trade negotiating objectives of which subsections (5) and (7) are

“mutually supportive and to seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international means of doing so.”

That legislation by Congress, which the noble Lord says restricts the trade representative of the United States—I think it empowers them—states, as far as Congress is concerned, the remit of what the United States will negotiate. The consequence of what President Trump has said with regard to those international agreements has been significant, because the United States’ legislation states that it can agree a free trade agreement with a country only where both are party to the same international obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

Banning investor-state dispute cases of that kind is not sufficient. As it happens, Philip Morris lost its case due to an abuse of process, because it set up a company in Hong Kong purely for the purpose of utilising the Hong Kong-Australia treaty. However, tobacco companies managed to secure the support of five Governments, in Ukraine, Cuba, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic and Honduras, to take a case to the WTO. They lost that case, so we do not really need to ban investor-state dispute settlements—although for the purposes of these rollover agreements, the European Union has effectively not accepted ISDS, and there is a separate investor court process. Even so—even when we trade on WTO terms—we have to be aware that we could be challenged. But Australia won that case and, in the appellate judgment in June this year, brought by Honduras and the Dominican Republic, they won again. They did so because there is an exception for public health measures in the WTO structure. I am not sure in all this where these amendments are trying to take us. I think we have the protections and the government commitments that we require.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for stating in very clear terms the benefit of putting into statute some of the restrictions on some of the activities of our political leaders, so that we do not need to trust them, because these are in the law. I hope that when it comes to future groups in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others will remember those very wise words of counsel that it is important to have things in writing in our statutes to protect our valued principles and institutions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing that.

As my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out—this is at the heart of the debate on this group—the NHS is not just a greatly valued health and social service for our nation but is seen by many as a great economic asset. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right that, when it comes to procurement and the provision of services, there is a great deal that is provided by the private sector. In the debate on the first group, I highlighted that about half the public procurement of the entire UK Government relates to health and that around one-quarter of the beds in the mental health service in the north-west of England are operated by an American health operator. I made no judgment about the good or bad side of that, but simply stated it as a fact. And it is a fact that the United States wants to expand market access to the provision. The question that then comes is: what is the limit and, as my noble friend Lord Fox indicated, what is the right balance? That is a question for the Government.

The Government have stated, as they would say, “categorically”, that the NHS is not for sale. Michael Gove was in the Scottish Parliament just this week, and he said to MSPs:

“The NHS is not for sale under any circumstances.”


My question is: what does he mean by the NHS? For many people, intellectual property and pharmaceuticals, the access to and price of medicines, the delivery of services, the buildings that people are in, and the employers of the people providing those services, are the NHS. We can outline concerns about some of the risks of a trade agreement facilitating greater market access for the provision of the private service situation from America, but what is the Government’s view about the limits of that? This is a genuine and legitimate question that Members speaking on this group have asked.

Before I move on to Amendment 75, in the name of my noble friend Lady Sheehan, reference was given to the potential American deal. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely correct that much of the Bill is about how the continuity agreements are in operation; he cited the existing agreements that we have and he cited CETA. On IP and ISDS, which we will come to later, there is a different approach, which we want to explore further.

One of the things that gave us a degree of reassurance —there was of course debate on CETA and the health service; I remember that very clearly—and one of the differences was that British parliamentarians were able to take part in discussions agreeing the mandate for CETA when it came to the remit and extent to which health and pharmaceuticals and intellectual property would be within the agreement. The INTA committee in the European Parliament would have seen the text of the mandate and the negotiation position, the offer from the European Union and a draft text before it was signed, and it would have seen the final text before it went for a final review. None of us in this Committee will have any opportunity to have any of the equivalent for the American deal. It is therefore right to ask probing questions, especially since the question asked—I think by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—was: what do the Americans want? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that wanting something is not getting it. However, knowing what they want, and asking the Government what their position is on whether we are offering it, is correct scrutiny.

What do the Americans want? As we have heard, on intellectual property they refer to TRIPS, and page 8 of its negotiating mandate says it wants to

“ensure that the Agreement fosters innovation and promotes access to medicines, reflecting a standard similar to that found in U.S. law”.

When it comes to procedural fairness for pharmaceutical and medical devices, it wants to:

“Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for U.S. products.”


We know what the American request is. We have not seen any of the negotiating offer from the UK—any counter-offer or any draft text—and the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has not been provided with any draft text, as far as I am aware. Therefore, it is right to have in this Bill, at this time, proper questions along those lines. If the Government do not say what they mean by the NHS and the extent to which market access is open to new American providers then we must have the continuation of scrutiny.

On Amendment 75, I think my noble friend did the Committee a great service in bringing this amendment forward. My noble friend Baroness Northover has given the international context, as part of the debate on this group is around the international considerations. I am a member of the International Relations and Defence Select Committee, and we published a report in July this year which highlighted some of the truly drastic impacts of Covid-19 on Africa. We looked not just purely at the health elements but at the economic impacts. Of course, any economic impacts on the continent of Africa are also trade impacts for the United Kingdom’s relationship with those countries.

The African Trade Policy Centre of the UN Economic Commission for Africa has seen a 40% fall in African exports and GDP has effectively halved. The worst-case scenario looks like GDP falling by $120 billion, and UN ECA estimates point to Covid-19 pushing 27 million people into extreme poverty while imposing £44 billion to £46 billion in additional health costs. We know that those additional health costs will also incorporate what is likely to be a huge burden on many countries to provide vaccines and other medical support for a long-term, sustainable recovery from Covid-19.

It is right that my noble friend has raised the issue of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration and whether the United Kingdom should activate, under that TRIPS Agreement, the ability of taking products over patents and then making them accessible. They would be accessible not just here in the United Kingdom but through a trading relationship. It is absolutely right that she has made that case. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has pointed to the Government’s capability to do that. My question to the Minister is: is it the Government’s intention to do it?

Canada did it in March. Canada Bill C-13—

“An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19”—


authorised the Government of Canada to supply

“a patented invention to the extent necessary to respond to a public health emergency that is a matter of national concern.”

The Prime Minister indicated that Canada’s role within that is not just at home but abroad. If Canada was able to do that in March, knowing what the likely global impact would be not only on Canada but on the least-developed countries in the world, what is the UK’s position? If we have not activated that agreement, why not? If it is the Government’s intention to do it, how will they implement it?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure noble Lords remember that when they first entered your Lordships’ House, they would occasionally find it hard to remember how to get from A to B. There have been times during this debate, echoing the words of my noble friend Lord Lansley, when I thought perhaps I had wandered into the wrong Committee Room by mistake, because a lot of what we have discussed—in what has been a most stimulating debate—did not seem to relate to the purpose of the Bill, which is the rollover of continuity trade agreements. Leaving that to one side, I turn first to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would mean that the Clause 2 power could not be used to implement agreements that restrict the delivery of public services through public monopolies, exclusive rights or nationalisation.

As noble Lords know, we need the powers in the Bill to ensure continuity of trading relationships with existing partners. To date—I say yet again—we have signed 20 agreements with 48 countries, accounting, I am pleased to say, for £110 billion of trade in 2018 numbers. I can confirm that none of these signed agreements have impacted our ability to deliver public services effectively. We have always protected our right to choose how we deliver public services in trade agreements and will continue to do so. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public and that will not change. I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, a complete reassurance on that. I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we will not do anything that impugns the democratic control of these matters.

Noble Lords will observe from our record of signed agreements that the continuity programme is seeking to preserve current trading relationships, not alter the way in which our public services are designed or delivered. If this is not an unparliamentary term, I think it is a red herring to suggest otherwise.

Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to stipulate that regulations can be made using Clause 2 of the Trade Bill only if the agreement does not undermine the way in which the NHS is delivered as a public good, universal and free at the point of service.

No one listening to the debate could be in any doubt of the important place that the NHS has in the nation’s heart. I am pleased to put on record that I and the Government share the sentiment behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. We have been consistently clear about our commitment to the guiding principles of the NHS: that it is universal and free at the point of need. I tell the Committee the same thing that my colleague, the Minister for Trade Policy, told the other place, that

“the NHS is not and never will be for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic.”—[Official Report, Commons, Trade Bill Committee, 25/6/20; col. 315.]

The Government will ensure that no trade agreements will affect our ability to keep public services public.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in his remarks, the Minister referred twice to the mandate that the negotiators have for a future trade deal with America and stated that the mandate excludes the NHS. The language that the Government have always used is that they do not have a “mandate” for these negotiations, but “negotiating objectives”. If there is a mandate, as the Minister referred to, will he write to me about what it is? If he would prefer that to be confidential, he can write just to me, but it would also be beneficial and helpful if he wrote to the International Agreements Sub-Committee about it.

Secondly, the Minister must have been briefed before the debate on this group of amendments on both the consequences and the global implications of my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s very proper amendment, which raises these questions. My question to him—on the Government’s policy on utilising the TRIPS flexibilities that exist for medicines patents, which could then be available through our trading relationship with the least developed countries—could not have been more specific. He did not respond to it in his winding-up speech, so what is the Government’s position there? If they have not implemented legislation, as Canada did in March, why not?

[Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I draw no distinction between our negotiating objectives, which were made public before we started the US FTA negotiations, and the mandate. When I used “mandate”, I was referring to our negotiating objectives. I apologise if that caused the noble Lord any confusion. I will write to him on his point about TRIPS.