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

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Matt Rodda

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Dhesi]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. [Interruption.] I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West for his remarks from a sedentary position. Were he speaking to this new clause, I am sure he would do a much better job. As we delve deeper into the considerations of the CPTPP, our focus now shifts to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. We must pay close attention to the safeguarding of national sovereignty, public welfare and environmental integrity. We in the Labour party have listened to the voices of numerous stakeholders, including the Trades Union Congress, the Trade Justice Movement and Greenpeace, which all express concern at the impact of the ISDS mechanism, particularly highlighting its disproportionate impact on democratic governance and policy autonomy.

As hon. Members will know, the ISDS mechanisms allow private investors to sue Governments for alleged discriminatory practices. I wish to flag concerns about ISDS’s potential to challenge environmental regulations. A poignant example is the 2021 case of Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, which illustrates the tension between corporate interests and environmental conservation. Colombia’s efforts to protect the páramos—a crucial ecosystem supplying 70% of the nation’s water—were countered by Eco Oro with a substantial legal claim of $696 million in damages due to a mining ban. This case highlights the potential for ISDS mechanisms to be wielded against Government actions aimed at preserving the environment, thereby urging the UK to tread cautiously as we navigate the intricacies of international trade agreements like the CPTPP.

We are particularly wary of how these mechanisms might impede our nation’s progress towards meeting climate targets. Furthermore, the potential jeopardy ISDS poses to public services cannot be overstated. The TUC has raised concerns that the prospect of foreign investors suing over the nationalisation of services, or the introduction of new public health regulations threatens our capacity to govern in the public interest, potentially having dire consequences for essential services such as the NHS and education.

For example, the case of Veolia v. Egypt, which concluded in 2018 after six years of litigation, where Veolia sued over wage increase policies, underscores the risk of ISDS mechanisms being used to challenge policies aimed at improving public welfare, with legal proceedings that can last years and entail substantial financial costs for Governments. Although Veolia eventually lost that case, it is still the case that Governments lose even if they win, because the Egyptian Government had to spend six years defending the case and pay millions of dollars in arbitration and legal costs. Although the costs of that case have not been made public, studies from the OECD show that average costs are $8 million to $10 million, and they can be as high as $30 million. That case serves as a reminder of the potential for ISDS to prioritise profits over the wellbeing of citizens, making it imperative to reform those mechanisms to enhance transparency and fairness in the dispute resolution process.

Historical precedents starkly illustrate the contentious nature of ISDS mechanisms. The shadow Minister for international trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), proposed amendments, inspired by real world cases like Philip Morris’s challenge against Australia, that highlight the pressing need for stringent scrutiny and limitations on ISDS provisions to prevent corporate interests from unduly influencing national policy. Those instances demonstrate a pattern where ISDS is utilised to contest national policies and regulations, emphasising the need for enhanced parliamentary oversight and public consultation, as proposed in our amendments. Such cases vividly underscore the threat that ISDS poses to environmental policies and actions crucial for combating climate change and protecting biodiversity. Those examples highlight the pressing need for that scrutiny, which is why that enhanced parliamentary oversight is important.

I also want to delve into data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which indicates that disputes involving environmental regulations are on the rise, emphasising the vulnerability of environmental policies under ISDS. It is imperative to note that, between 1993 and 2020, UNCTAD reported a staggering 1,104 known ISDS cases globally, with a significant number of challenging environmental regulations. That necessitates implementing safeguards in the CPTPP Bill to prevent challenges to measures protecting biodiversity or reducing carbon emissions. That trend once again underscores the urgency of implementing safeguards within the CPTPP Bill to protect against ISDS overreach, ensuring that measures taken to protect biodiversity or reduce carbon emissions are not contested, thus preserving our commitments under international agreements, like the Paris climate agreement.

I also want to discuss public services at risk. A study by the European Federation of Public Service Unions highlights that ISDS mechanisms have been used to challenge public interest measures, such as environmental regulations, health and safety standards, showing a clear conflict with public service provision. The ability for foreign investors to sue over the nationalisation of services or the introduction of new regulations to protect public health poses a threat to our ability to govern in the public interest. That could have dire consequences for the NHS, education and other critical public services, restricting our ability to implement policies without the spectre of costly legal challenges.

None the less, it is also crucial to acknowledge the perspective that ISDS provisions, when applied judiciously, can offer a level of legal protection to investors against genuine cases of expropriation or unfair treatment by host states, thereby contributing to a stable investment environment. The challenge lies in ensuring that those mechanisms do not infringe upon the legitimate policy space of Governments to enact regulations in the public interest.

Considering the critical examination of the ISDS provisions within the CPTPP, it is essential to underscore that ISDS mechanisms can significantly impact the regulatory sovereignty of nations, allowing private corporations to challenge public policies and regulations designed to protect public health, the environment and welfare. I am sure the Minister is aware that we have had several debates over the last few years, and especially over the seven years that I have been in Parliament, around sovereignty and the need to protect national sovereignty, so I hope he will address these concerns.

Our proposed amendments, such as that to clause 2 for enhanced parliamentary oversight, and the requirement for public consultation on ISDS provisions, are informed by the analysis of cases like Veolia v. Egypt and Philip Morris v. Australia, which demonstrate the tangible risks ISDS poses to public welfare and environmental protection. Our amendment to clause 2 for enhanced parliamentary oversight proposes mandating parliamentary approval for regulations relating to ISDS mechanisms by resolution of each House of Parliament, reflecting our commitment to democratic oversight. This step ensures that the ISDS mechanism within the CPTPP undergoes thorough scrutiny, reflecting our dedication to maintaining the integrity of our legislative process.

With regard to public consultation requirements on ISDS provisions, in alignment with our principles of transparency and public engagement we propose adding a requirement for comprehensive public consultations specifically on the ISDS provisions within the CPTPP. This amendment ensures that the diverse viewpoints and concerns of our society, including those from trade unions, environmental groups and sectors potentially affected by our ISDS claims, are duly recognised and addressed.

In relation to safeguard amendments against ISDS overreach, inspired by the consolidated list of amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, the shadow Minister for Business and Trade—he has done a great deal of hard work on this—we advocate for safeguards within the CPTPP Bill to protect against the overreach of ISDS mechanisms. That includes stipulations that prevent ISDS claims from undermining the UK’s legislative autonomy in areas such as public health, environmental protection and labour rights, thereby preserving the UK’s regulatory autonomy and ensuring that ISDS mechanisms cannot be used to challenge legislative and regulatory actions taken in the public interest in our Parliament.

By proposing these focused amendments to the CPTPP Bill, we aim to address the legitimate concerns surrounding ISDS mechanisms and their potential implications for our country. These proposals are founded on our unwavering commitment to upholding the principles of fairness, environmental stewardship and social justice in our trade policy. This ensures that our trade agreements not only pursue economic objectives, but safeguard the broader interests of our society and the protection of our democratic processes.

[Matt Rodda]

I commend my hon. Friend’s speech. He is making an excellent point. This issue has been raised with me a number of times in my time as an MP, by both charities and other civil society groups. There is a great deal of concern about ISDS in the community, particularly, in my experience, from charities involved in development. My hon. Friend is making an excellent point in trying to address some of those legitimate concerns about the nature of trade policy.

[Mr Dhesi]

The contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East and other hon. Members in the Chamber on Second Reading underlined serious, legitimate concerns around ISDS and how it has been utilised around the world. I fear that the Government have not fully addressed those concerns. That is why I have gone to great lengths to delineate the problem. I hope that the Minister will address those points in his concluding remarks.

In conclusion, while recognising the potential economic benefits of the CPTPP, the Labour party remains steadfast in its commitment to protecting the UK’s sovereignty, public welfare and environmental integrity. Our call for a balanced approach to the ISDS mechanism is underpinned by substantial evidence of its potential misuse in challenging public interest measures, necessitating reforms to ensure that trade agreements such as the CPTPP do not undermine democratic governance or the ability of Government to regulate in the public interest. As we proceed in Committee, let us ensure that our trade policies reflect our collective aspirations for a fairer, more sustainable future.

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

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Matt Rodda

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend makes that point powerfully, and it is essential that those considerations are put forward by the Minister in his response. Those issues around procurement and the impact on our British industries are extremely important. The broad reach of the CPTPP, encompassing countries with diverse labour practices, demands a firm commitment to enforceable labour protections. We cannot leave the door open for a race to the bottom in labour rights. The absence of a dedicated clause on labour rights is a glaring omission, reflecting the Conservatives’ faltering commitment to protecting labour rights in international treaties and highlighting the urgent need for the CPTPP to embody our shared values of fairness and ethical trade practices.

[Matt Rodda]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on an excellent speech in which he is highlighting a number of weaknesses in the Government’s approach. Does he agree that his points are particularly relevant, given that we have just entered a recession, and that many working people and small businesses are under increasing pressure from not just the cost of living crisis but wider economic pressure as the economy contracts? I have a number of small businesses and working people in my constituency who have raised deep concerns with me recently. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to be doing more at this critical time?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. The Opposition are extremely concerned, whether it is about our economy going into recession, or the cost of living crisis or the various other forms of malaise that affect our society. We do not want any arrangement with the CPTPP, particularly regarding procurement, that impacts more negatively than what is already going on.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Matt Rodda

2nd reading
Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dhesi]

With the leave of the House, I will close this HS2 debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sincerely grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed today and made eloquent points. They have sometimes opposed one another, but they have been eloquent on behalf of their constituents.

The hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke eloquently in opposition to High Speed 2. They spoke about the need for consultation and for more reliable and better local transport links. It is right that they did so on behalf of their constituents, who are vociferously opposed to the high speed link.

I thank the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who spoke in favour of High Speed 2 and about the huge benefits for his constituents and the increased number of engineering and other jobs available. I also thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who rightly said that it is not about speed, but about capacity, and that it will help to bridge the north-south divide.

The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) spoke about the need for electrification of north-west rail lines and the need to improve east-to-west connectivity with HS2, because that is the only way his constituents and many others in Wales can benefit from HS2. He also spoke about the need finally to publish the rail network enhancements pipeline, and I hope that the Minister was listening. That is in addition to the various written parliamentary questions that I have written to him about that.

The hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) also spoke in favour of HS2, and about the lack of capacity in the Manchester corridor and the need to improve that. The hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy) welcomed the scrapping of the Golborne link, as did the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). Indeed, I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) speaking to me that there is a lot of cross-party support for that in their area, although there is not consensus, as we will soon find out, given the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) spoke extremely passionately about the need to get on with High Speed 2, and about the need to free up and increase local transport links and increase rail freight. He spoke at length about Manchester Piccadilly station, as did other Manchester colleagues. I ask the Minister to look again at the proposals, particularly with reference to the blight that they would inflict on Manchester and the growth opportunities that would be forgone as a consequence.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) has spoken to me on various occasions about her opposition to the closing of the tram Metrolink for two years. That is completely unacceptable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish also referred to. We need to rethink this proposal, rather than fob off local residents, particularly those in Tameside and the east Manchester conurbation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) spoke about the need to look on this as a national infrastructure priority for all of us, and he also dwelled on the need to learn lessons from the incredible Crossrail project. He spoke about the need to catch up with our European neighbours and those in other parts of the world on high-speed rail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) made numerous interventions in the debate and, collated together, they would have more than sufficed to make a speech. He spoke eloquently about the need to get basics right. It is important, in particular, to solve issues such as the collapsed station roof in his constituency as well as the local transport links before we embark on further major infrastructure projects.

I appreciate that, across the House, this Bill can be very divisive, but what is not controversial is wanting to see solid and fair investment across our communities, which I know the whole House can stand behind. I support investment in our great northern and midlands towns and cities, but I cannot in good faith say that, as it stands, this Bill delivers the right infrastructure to long-suffering passengers. I want to see real ambition from Ministers and Government, but, sadly, all I see is broken promises and excuses. While we should be building a shiny new future for rail, we have, unfortunately, already started on the wrong foot. As we progress through the passing of this Bill, we need to see better, and I hope that the rail Minister has made note of the important contributions today.

The good people of our country deserve better—much better—and we in the Labour party will continue to press Ministers throughout the passage of this Bill on key areas. For example, we will look for: a commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail being delivered rather than seeing promises reneged upon; a solution to Manchester Piccadilly station that minimises disruption and enables future connectivity to Bradford and Leeds; a solution for the Ashton Metrolink rather than fobbing off local MPs and residents; and for capacity constraints on the west coast main line to be addressed, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), allowing for improved connections to Scotland from the north of England. If the Golborne link is also not to be taken forward, any funding saved should be reinvested in local transport projects.

The people of our country deserve a Government who are serious about improving our transport network no matter where one lives or works. We need not just an improvement in route planning and engagement with local leaders and communities but better procurement and employment opportunities for the Great British people. I stand committed to ensuring that people across our country see the benefit of the project in jobs and opportunities, especially having seen the talented young apprentices and engineers during my recent visit to the HS2 Old Oak Common station organised by the all-party parliamentary group for women in transport. We simply cannot stand by when, for example, only one UK-based firm has been shortlisted for £2.5 billion-worth of track and tunnel systems. We must ensure that the bidding process for HS2 contracts takes a holistic approach, looking at the net economic benefit of proposals and the companies who complete them. Labour would ensure that more public contracts went to British companies, from small construction businesses to national corporations. Buying, making and selling more in Britain benefits us all.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that railway towns across the country, whether in the north, the south, the midlands, Wales or Scotland, would all benefit from such strategic procurement and that it is incumbent on the Government to look at exactly what he talks about?

[Mr Dhesi]

I fully agree. Indeed, those benefits should not come at a disproportionate financial cost. HS2 should ensure value for money for taxpayers. In 2020, the National Audit Office noted that HS2 was over budget and behind schedule due to an underestimation of its complexity and risk by the Department for Transport, HS2 and the Government. Where is the leadership that the project desperately needs? It urgently needs to get back on track.

Fundamentally, the project’s potential is being missed and the only thing that Ministers have brought to the table is a lack of ambition. I hope that, as we move forward with the Bill, key areas of concern will be addressed. Promises made must be kept, including on the completion of HS2 in full. The Labour party and I will hold the Government keenly to account to ensure that that transpires.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Matt Rodda

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Rodda]

The Minister has addressed some of these issues, but it is vital to get this right. HS2 will allow for more reliable rail services. The current Secretary of State has plunged punctuality on the railways to a new depth—a 13-year low—and we must get on top of that issue. This is a tremendous opportunity to improve connectivity, and it is vital to get urban-to-urban connectivity within the country. We are committed to delivering a transformative package of investment across the rail network in the north of England, backed by a commitment of at least £10 billion to transform connections between major northern cities. The Government have touted similar plans, sometimes described as Northern Powerhouse Rail or HS3, but there is no commitment to the funding—it is interesting that the Minister used that point to address the financial side of the programme.

Any incoming Labour Government would rescope the project to seriously reduce costs and provide far better integration. Furthermore, there is concern over the accountability and the ability of our colleagues in this House to scrutinise HS2, ensure that costs are kept under control, and address the issue of public trust. We believe there is the potential to reduce the cost of HS2 by using a number of other technical measures—I will not address those in detail now—and the operation of HS2 is also contentious. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being invested in HS2, and it is right that revenues go back to the Exchequer and not into the hands of private train operating companies. HS2 should be run in the public sector as a public service. I will return to some of those points later in relation to the new clauses.

The Government have been somewhat inept in handling another specific aspect. HS2 has been rightly criticised for sometimes failing to provide value for public money. For example, the Public Accounts Committee described an unauthorised redundancy bill of £1.76 million as

“a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money”,

blaming it on

“weak internal processes at HS2”,

and there have been other concerns about the project.

[Mr Dhesi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of spiralling costs concerns many of us up and down the country? If we do not get this right, it will have a huge impact on how services are delivered in our local communities in terms of housing, education, hospitals and so forth. Does he agree that the Government need to get a grip on the costs of HS2?

[Matt Rodda]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; it is nice to have a colleague from Berkshire Labour intervening on me. The Government need to be responsible with these very large sums of public money, and it is deeply disappointing that they have fallen well short at times.

The words of the Public Accounts Committee are worth considering:

“a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money”

is a severe condemnation of the Government. There have been many other allegations about HS2’s potentially not being well planned or managed. Ensuring that HS2 secures value for money is essential if we are to retain public support for the project. There should be no blank cheque.