Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The UK’s application to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is founded mostly on its diplomatic advantages rather than on its advantages for international trade. Strengthening our ties with established and developing free market economies and liberal democracies is a positive goal in itself, and it is right that we should think about how we can leverage our international trade power to build those partnerships, but we need to balance our diplomatic interests with our economic ones.

Joining an existing economic partnership whose rules have already been developed and cannot be changed for our benefit is fraught with risk. Before accession, there should be a full consultation, debate and vote in Parliament so that every part of this country and every economic sector can review the risks and benefits and contribute to the decision. Greater scrutiny leads to better decision making. A better and more informed awareness of the risks will surely help us to better leverage any advantages.

The principal risk and, as I understand it, the reason that the Biden Administration are reluctant to sign up to the CPTPP is that the rules governing membership inhibit national Governments from pursuing their public policy objectives. That inhibition is primarily through the use of investor-state dispute settlements, which the CPTPP allows. ISDS allows private companies to sue national Governments if public policy limits their ability to make profits. ISDS has been used to challenge important environmental regulations, including water pollution controls in Germany, a ban on fracking in Canada and various regulations on mining in east Africa and South America. There is also evidence of ISDS being used to challenge health provision, labour rights and other important regulations. ISDS was used in Egypt to challenge an increase in the minimum wage. Philip Morris sued Australia for attempting to introduce plain-packaged cigarettes and Slovakia was sued for attempting to nationalise part of the health service.

The risk to the UK is clear. The need for us to take urgent action to tackle climate change has been spelled out for us once more this morning by the Climate Change Committee in its new report. This country is not on track to meet our net zero commitments without urgent further action. There is public pressure and political consensus on the need for that action and we should not put ourselves in a position where action can be undermined by carbon-emitting companies looking to make profits. There is too much at stake.

The CPTPP places obligations on members to recognise each other’s standards as equivalent. This is a huge concern for those who value the UK’s high standards of agriculture and food safety. Enabling the import of agricultural and food products into this country that do not meet our existing thresholds or welfare and quality will weaken our domestic producers.

I was going to make some observations about data, but the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) who spoke just before me covered that really well, and I merely endorse his comments.

If we were firmly focused on our diplomatic and trade interests, we would not have left the single market or the customs union. As we try to mitigate the various impacts of those Government decisions, we need to be honest about the trade-offs required from different courses of action. Are the risks of entering into this partnership worth the 0.017% uplift in GDP? The public deserves a proper scrutiny of these plans, so that we can make the best decision in the national interest.