The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch) With
your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on
the progress of negotiations for us to join the comprehensive and
progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. I am delighted
to announce that since we first launched consultations in 2018, and
after nearly two years of talks, the UK has substantially concluded
negotiations to accede to the CPTPP. We will become the first
country to...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade ()
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a
statement on the progress of negotiations for us to join the
comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific
partnership.
I am delighted to announce that since we first launched
consultations in 2018, and after nearly two years of talks, the
UK has substantially concluded negotiations to accede to the
CPTPP. We will become the first country to join since the
original partnership was founded. I am also pleased to tell the
House that we are delivering on our post-Brexit agenda for a
modern, free-trading global Britain, and that this agreement
represents the future of global trade. Our negotiators have spent
21 months working painstakingly, and often through the night, to
secure the best deal for the UK, and that is what they have done.
This is an outstanding deal for our country, giving access to a
fast-growing economic bloc that will allow us to sell our goods
and services without giving up control of our laws.
Before I continue my statement, let me thank former Secretaries
of State for International Trade. I thank my right hon. Friend
the Member for North Somerset (), who developed this strategy and without whom today
would not have been possible. I thank my right hon. Friend the
Member for South West Norfolk (), who first appointed me as
Trade Secretary, and who launched the negotiations and ensured
throughout her tenure that this was a deal that would be
delivered. I thank the present Minister of State, Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (), for her support and
invaluable advice. I also thank my current and former Trade
Ministers.
I am told that Their Excellencies the Japanese and Vietnamese
ambassadors are with us today. It should not go without saying
that both countries were extremely supportive of our accession. I
thank the ambassadors and their countries, and the various
negotiators and working groups, for everything that they did to
help the UK to accede today.
The CPTPP will act as a gateway to the Indo-Pacific, one of the
most dynamic and fastest-growing regions on Earth. The
Indo-Pacific is expected to account for the majority of global
growth by 2050. The CPTPP will grow nearly 40% faster than the EU
over the next three decades, and membership of the bloc will
enhance access to a market of more than 500 million consumers for
the UK’s goods and services. That is why I described the CPTPP as
representing the future of global trade. The brilliant terms that
we have secured mean that British businesses will be able to
target these dynamic economies, which will account for 15% of
global GDP once the UK has joined. As the partnership grows, so
will its role in shaping the rules of global trade. This alliance
will help us to confront growing protectionism and unfair trading
practices, putting us in a stronger position to withstand global
shocks.
British businesses will enjoy new opportunities as part of the
CPTPP. For instance, 99% of current UK goods exports to its
members will be eligible for tariff-free trade, new tariff
reductions with countries such as Mexico and Canada will boost
export opportunities, and a new free-trade deal with Malaysia
will open up a £330 billion economy to the UK.
We will benefit from reduced red tape and simplified customs
procedures across the bloc, and from modern rules of origin that
offer British businesses new export opportunities and could help
support UK efforts to diversify critical supply chains. We have
all seen what can happen to supply chains when economic shocks
happen. This global flexibility with like-minded partners will
help British firms to become more resilient and protect economic
security. For supply chains, this partnership is the future of
global trade.
As a Minister who represents a rural constituency, I understand
the concerns farmers may have about trade agreements because they
have told me about them many times, so I know that Members
representing agricultural communities will be delighted with the
opportunities the CPTPP presents. I would like to put on record
my thanks to the President of the National Farmers Union, Minette
Batters, for recognising the opportunity to, as she puts it,
“get more fantastic British food on plates overseas”.
As the world’s demand for meat and dairy changes, having better
access to growing and dynamic economies in other parts of the
globe will protect British farmers and food producers into the
future.
Our farmers will benefit from increased market access on these
products, including through tariff free exports to Mexico for
beef, pork and poultry and new zero-tariff access to Canada’s
butter and cream market, which we did not have under our existing
EU roll-over agreement. Our cheesemakers will have new market
access to additional shared quotas, equating to about 7.5 times
the amount we currently export to Canada, and our distillers will
benefit from the elimination of tariffs of around 80% on UK
whisky to Malaysia within 10 years. So for food and drinks
exports, the partnership represents the future of global
trade.
The UK is already a services superpower. Our digital, financial
and legal services, among many others, are the envy of the world.
This world-leading agreement will help them to grow further
still. In future, a British firm will be able to operate on a par
with a Vietnamese one without setting up a Hanoi branch. British
firms will face less red tape in doing trade and business travel
will become smoother and easier. For the modern services and tech
economy, the partnership represents the future of global
trade.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, no trade agreement comes
without a quid pro quo, but we have taken our time to get this
deal right for the UK and we never compromise on food quality or
animal welfare standards. Joining CPTPP is no different. We will
not have to change our standards to join, including on
chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef, as many detractors
would like to have the British public believe. We have also made
sure that our high environment and labour standards are
protected, so the CPTPP agreement includes comprehensive chapters
for environmental protections, anti-corruption and improving
workers’ rights. We have secured appropriate protections for the
UK producers, reducing import tariffs in a manner proportionate
to the market access we have received, and maintaining
protections where needed.
Membership will enable us to shape the future of the agreement,
including its future membership, and it will increase our
influence and that of the wider bloc in setting the rules of the
global economy. CPTPP shows how sovereign countries can uphold
high standards without being subject to foreign court rulings or
membership fees.
Parliament will rightly want ample opportunity to scrutinise this
deal before ratification. My Department will follow the process
set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Parliament will also have the opportunity to scrutinise any
implementing legislation, as was the case with the recent Trade
(Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023. The people of this country
have voted for the future of global trade, not the past. On
goods, on services, on supply chains, on growth and on
rules-based trade without ceding sovereignty or losing control of
our borders, this agreement lives up to that instruction. We are
securing a place for the UK in the future of global trade, and I
commend this statement to the House.
4.48pm
(Torfaen) (Lab)
I am of course grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me
advance sight of her statement, but having listened, the detail
is paper thin. The published negotiating strategy from the UK
Government was limited and even the policy paper that was
published alongside the announcement on 31 March is very general
indeed. The Secretary of State herself has been on the airwaves
questioning the projections of her own Department that this
offers 0.08% to our GDP. And while there has finally been
progress in the CPTPP accession talks, this does not make up for
the failure to deliver the India trade deal, or indeed the US
trade deal, promised by the end of last year. Perhaps the
Secretary of State can tell us when that US deal might be
completed, given that negotiations are now not expected even to
begin until 2025.
We on the Labour Benches are pro-trade, pro-business and
pro-worker. Accessing new markets is essential, and it is
particularly welcome because of the Government’s dreadful record
on trade. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that UK
exports are due to fall by 6.6% this year, which is a more than
£51 billion hit to the UK economy. That will only further impact
on our public services, which are already under incredible
pressure, and make the cost of living crisis even worse.
What exactly Ministers have agreed to in these accession talks
will need to be scrutinised carefully, because I have watched
Ministers come into this Chamber to laud trade deals, only to
criticise them when they leave office or, in the Prime Minister’s
case, when they are temporarily out of office—he said the
Australia deal is “one-sided.”
This announcement was slipped out on the last day before recess.
Of course it is great that the Secretary of State is here, but
answers are needed. First, other countries that have joined CPTPP
have secured important safeguards and support for their
producers. It is vital that Ministers set out the details of what
they have negotiated. In her statement, the Secretary of State
mentioned that all trade deals involve a quid pro quo, but she
did not say what the quid pro quo is in respect of CPTPP.
Specifically, New Zealand put in place side letters with all the
other signatories to opt out of the investor-state dispute
settlement mechanism, which could give investors from abroad the
right to sue the Government for choosing to regulate in a
particular area. The Government seem to have excluded ISDS with
Australia and New Zealand, but not with the other countries. Why
have they done that, and what assurance can the Secretary of
State give that the Government can legislate in the interests of
the British people without the threat of being sued under this
mechanism?
The Secretary of State mentioned maintaining certain protections
for agriculture, but can she be more specific? What particular
support will the Government offer to the agricultural sector and
when, particularly given the strong feeling that Ministers sold
out our farmers to get the Australia deal over the line? Have
specific conditions been put in place to address concerns about
the importation of palm oil, which has been linked to
deforestation?
The Secretary of State did not even mention the devolved
Governments in her statement. What engagement does she proposes
to have with them? What detailed assurances can the Government
provide that the CPTPP agreement will not undermine the Windsor
framework?
The Secretary of State also mentioned our influence as a member
of CPTPP. We know that China applied to join in September 2021,
so what assurances on economics and security have Ministers asked
for from existing members in respect of China’s application?
The Secretary of State also mentioned the chapters in CPTPP,
including on workers’ rights, on which she will know there are
concerns in particular member countries. How will Ministers
assure us that the strongest possible workers’ rights are adhered
to, to ensure that UK workers operate on a fair playing field and
that vulnerable workers internationally do not face
exploitation?
I know that the Secretary of State does not accept the estimate
that accession is worth 0.08% of GDP but, rather than debate the
figure, what proactive steps will the Government now take to
support our exporters to ensure the figure is driven up?
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions.
I know it must be difficult to sit on the Opposition Front Bench
and find a way to celebrate while we agree this fantastic trade
deal. The Labour Front Bench look like they have been sucking
lemons. I am thrilled to be able to answer pretty much all his
questions.
First, the right hon. Gentleman claims that this deal has
happened at the expense of the India free trade agreement, but I
stood at this Dispatch Box and told him that it is about the deal
not the day. I know the Labour Front Bench would like us to rush
into a deal that does not get the best for this country so that
they have something to criticise, but we are not going to do
that. We are going to negotiate a free trade agreement that is of
mutual benefit and meets the needs of both UK and Indian
citizens.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have not got a
US FTA, but that is because the US is not doing FTAs with any
countries; this has nothing to do specifically with the UK. When
Administrations change, we cannot control what the partner
country wants to do. So instead of just moaning, we have got on
and signed memorandums of understanding with US states. Indeed,
the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, my hon.
Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire () is not here today because
he is on a plane to Oklahoma to sign such a deal. I am pleased to
let the House know that.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a quid pro quo, and this is
absolutely right. One trade lesson 101 that I would like to give
him is: you cannot agree a trade deal where you get everything
you want and tell the people on the other side that they can have
nothing. If he has a formula for negotiating a deal where we can
sell everything to other countries and they cannot sell anything
to us, he should come to the Floor of the House and explain how
that can be done. A quid pro quo means having a deal that is of
mutual benefit: we open our markets and they open theirs. When
the legal text is done and we sign the agreement, there will be
plenty of time to scrutinise—[Interruption.] He is chuntering
from a sedentary position, “What is it? What is it?”. I would
like him to read the statement or listen to it. We have said that
99% of goods will be tariff-free. That is something that we have
negotiated across all parties. We have also talked about what we
get from rules of origin.
The right hon. Gentleman was clearly listening to me on the radio
when he heard me dispute the 0.08% figure. That is not because
the figure is wrong; it is because it is doing something
different from what he thinks it is doing. It is a model, not a
forecast. What we do with models is quite different from what we
do with forecasts. The model he is touting at the moment is not
tailored for the specific behaviour and dynamics of the UK
economy, it uses data from 2014 and it excludes growth in the
membership of the bloc to those who have applied. So what we
should not look at is the 0.08% figure, as it is purely a measure
of what would happen if we did not have this trade deal—that is
how the model works, and models are not forecasts. Instead, I ask
him to focus on the facts, which I have repeated time and time
again: the global middle class is going to be coming from the
Indo-Pacific; we are talking about 500 million consumers; and by
2050, it is going to outstrip the European Union. We are getting
in from the ground up and we are going to be shaping the future
of the UK for future generations. This is not about trying to
grow trade in the next five minutes. I have used the example
previously, but this is like investing in a start-up and
complaining that it is not brought any money in as soon as you
have signed the agreement. We are thinking about the future, not
the past.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned what we are doing for the
agricultural sector, and I point to what the National Farmers
Union said. We know that British farming is not going to succeed
unless we can export. We have created an exporting deal; this is
not just about the exports, but the services. All of that is
going to benefit farmers and the agricultural sector, to the
point that the NFU has come out to support this deal. I hope that
Opposition Members can do that, even though it was us who
negotiated it. I would like it if they would think about the
country and not just about party politics.
(Bournemouth West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on her
unshowy focus on delivery. Will she place on record, from the
Dispatch Box, her and the Government’s gratitude to our chief
trade adviser, Crawford Falconer, and to the brilliant guy who
has led the negotiations in the Department, Graham Zebedee, who
has been tenacious in getting this deal over the line? She is
right to say that we need to look again at the modelling that the
Department uses for these deals. In doing that, does she agree
that the best way to prove the doomsayers wrong is to herald the
opportunities that accession to the CPTPP opens up to British
businesses in every part of our United Kingdom and encourage them
to exploit those opportunities for the benefit of the UK
economy?
Absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and
also for the work he did when he was a Trade Minister in the
former Department for International Trade. He is absolutely right
to praise Crawford Falconer, the lead negotiator in the
Department —or a “legend” as most other people would describe
him—and also Graham Zebedee, who, at great personal cost to
himself and his new baby, was out there negotiating a very
difficult multilateral, not bilateral, deal.
My right hon. Friend is right to make the point about the figures
and the modelling. This is a challenge that we face: there are
many people who are, by and large, functionally innumerate and do
not necessarily know when to use figures. The figures that we
released from the Department were an impact assessment on the
absence or presence of a trade deal. They are being misused by
all sorts of detractors. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says
that civil servants do not tell lies. No, they do not. I have not
said that the figures are incorrect; I have said that they are
doing something quite different from what Labour Front Benchers
think they are doing. I will explain it as much as is possible,
but I cannot understand it for them. If they would like a lecture
on what these forecasts and impact assessments do, I am very
happy to give them one at a future date.
(Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her
statement. No matter how she tries to dress this up, the CPTPP
will still be a low standards agreement that lacks adequate
safeguards and represents a poor substitute for all the trade
deals that we have left behind. If this represents the future,
then it is no wonder that people in Scotland are looking for a
different future in that regard.
Previous Ministers—including the previous Brexit Secretary, no
less—failed to understand the important role that the port of
Dover plays in UK imports and exports. I would not normally
consider this necessary, but I feel that I may have to explain,
for the benefit of some of the sedentary chunterers across the
Chamber, that the Pacific is quite some distance away from the
UK, which is why even the Government’s own forecasts are
predicting that the UK emissions of greenhouse gases will
increase as a result of this deal.
The deal threatens UK food standards because it could open the
door to pesticides that are banned in the UK for health and
environmental reasons. Worryingly, it also includes text about
investor-state dispute settlement clauses, with all the
implications that carries, and for absolutely what? The Minister
can dance on the head of a pin about the difference between
models and forecasts, but the deal is still a pale imitation of
the trade deals that we have left behind, with the 4% hit to GDP
from Brexit.
Why are the Government so desperate to agree a deal that carries
so many risks for so few potential rewards? Where is the support
for the domestic agrifood sector? Finally, the Royal Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ActionAid, Fair Trade and
the Trade Justice Movement all say that the deal makes a mockery
of this Government’s sustainable trade goals. Are they wrong?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to apologise to our friends
from Japan and Vietnam who had to listen to that diatribe, and to
the hon. Gentleman calling this a low standards trade deal. It is
just embarrassing and, frankly, really poor for diplomacy. This
is a high standards deal. I know that it is a high standards deal
because we went through agony in order to make sure that we could
meet the high thresholds that the countries had set for us.
It is completely untrue to say that this deal lowers food
standards. Food standards are not part of a free trade agreement.
This is not the EU. We are not joining a political union. Our
regulations stay in the UK. Fundamentally, that is something the
SNP and other Members do not understand. We make the rules about
our food standards. That means that if something does not meet UK
food standards, it cannot be bought and sold into this country.
What this deal is about is trade, not regulation. If Scotch
whisky representatives and other Scottish exporters had to listen
to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, I think they would be most
incredibly disappointed. He does not understand trade. He is yet
another person who has just read a press release from campaign
groups and has not tested the arguments. I am very happy to stand
at the Dispatch Box and rebut all that rubbish.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State to underline a point that I
think she briefly made just now, which is that a welcome
difference between the late—and not very much lamented—EU and the
CPTPP is that the latter has no ambitions to create a politically
unified superstate?
I wholeheartedly endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments. He is
correct: this is purely a trade deal. I did not have the
opportunity to say so in answer to the hon. Member for Gordon
() earlier, but to call this
a “low standards agreement” is to forget its genesis. This deal
was signed by the US, when it was called the trans-Pacific
partnership, in 2016. The person who did not want it was
President Donald Trump, so it is interesting to find that the
hon. Gentleman and President Trump both disagree with the
benefits of this deal—he is in interesting company. This deal is
about the future of global trade and, as my right hon. Friend has
just said, it is exactly the sort of deal we should be doing,
rather than more political integration with other countries.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
Do the Government support China’s application to join the
CPTPP?
It would be quite wrong of me to start commenting on other
countries’ accession when we have not even signed our agreement.
Of course we will have a lot of interest in which countries will
be joining—China is not the only one; Ecuador and South Korea
have expressed interest, as has Indonesia. The fact is that we
are getting in before others, so we will have a say in what the
nature of their accession should be, and that is something to be
celebrated.
Sir (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this excellent deal and
thank her for the care and consideration she has shown towards
our farming community in her comments. Does this deal not put us
in a much stronger position for future trade agreements with
countries that we want to do business with, including perhaps
even the United States?
My hon. Friend is quite right that the standards we are setting
here show the roadmap for what the UK is interested in and
willing to do, particularly on services, which is quite novel for
many of the old free trade agreements out there.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
Many of the existing CPTPP members already have integrated supply
chains due to their close geographic location in the Indo-Pacific
region. One of the criticisms of the deal by experts, coupled
with our rupture from the EU single market, is that Great
Britain—excluding Northern Ireland—is effectively choosing to be
more a customer than a participant in international manufacturing
supply chains. What do the deal and the Government’s trade
strategy mean for manufacturers in Wales, Scotland and
England?
The deal creates more flexible rules of origin regulations, which
means that we will be able to sell tariff-free where there are
integrated components of multiple products. Creating a more
harmonised mutual recognition system between countries will make
it much easier for those exporters, particularly in
manufacturing, who want to take advantage of that. However, we
also need to remember that this is not just an export of goods
deal, but a services deal. The hon. Member for Gordon () talked about distance,
but we cannot put services on a container. One of the fantastic
things here is that we are making regulations easier across the
board in those services sectors I mentioned, and that will be
good for Scottish businesses as well.
(Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale
and Tweeddale) (Con)
I certainly welcome the opportunities for the Scotch whisky
industry in Malaysia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
countries such as Australia and New Zealand, both of which have
Labour Governments, have welcomed the UK’s accession to the
partnership not just for the trade opportunities, but because of
the values of this country and because they believe that our
commitment to rules-based trade will enhance and grow the
partnership?
My right hon. Friend has said it better than I could. This deal
has been universally welcomed across the board by countries with
Governments of different political flavours, because they
recognise that it is good not just for the UK or for them, but
for global trade more broadly.
(Caerphilly) (Lab)
What prior discussions where there with the devolved institutions
about the UK Government’s negotiating position, and what is going
to happen now? Will there be consultation on the ratification
process?
Yes, there was discussion. The process started in 2018, so it is
not just something that happened under my tenure. There will be
the usual process of parliamentary scrutiny under the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, where we will be
able to look at all the detail, just as we did with the Trade
(Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I serve as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Japan and as chair
of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan.
Negotiations of the CPTPP involved a strong commitment from all
member states, but will the Secretary of State join me in paying
particular thanks to the Government of Japan for their strong
support for the UK’s application and their hard work as chair of
the accession group? Does she look forward, as I do, to
increasingly strong trade and investment between our two
countries and other member states, especially in areas such as
offshore wind and automotive, as well as in fintech, of which an
important delegation from Japan is visiting the UK this very
week?
I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to say “yes”
wholeheartedly in answer to his question, and to emphasise that
this is not just an agricultural deal but one that cuts across
multiple sectors. Most of all, I thank him for the opportunity to
go into a little detail about Japan’s chairing of the working
group. Multilateral negotiations are just so much more complex,
in an interesting way, than bilateral ones. I know that, for the
Japanese, it was often like herding cats and took quite a lot of
effort and patience to get all the negotiating parties in the
same place for us to agree a deal, so I am particularly grateful
to them for all their work.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
The economic growth of CPTPP member Malaysia is largely dependent
on palm oil, which raises environmental concerns. What plans do
Ministers have to ensure that the UK’s joining does not undermine
our environmental principles?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, especially because it
gives me an opportunity to expand on exactly what the
implications of the tariff-free rate on Malaysian palm oil are.
There are 9,500 lines of products in the tariff register, of
which palm oil represents just a handful—maybe up to 10 or so.
The UK Government share the regard for environmental protections,
and we thought very carefully about them. It was not a decision
we took lightly, but we arrived at the conclusion, based on the
facts, that we already import only about 1% of Malaysia’s palm
oil and that keeping more tariffs on will not reforest. Malaysia
has actually done a good job of reducing
deforestation—deforestation related to palm oil fell by 60% in
Malaysia in 2012—and 72% of UK palm oil imports in 2021 were
certified as sustainable, up from 16%, so it is moving in a
positive direction. We should not tell the story of palm oil of
20 or 30 years ago; things are quite different now. To go back to
my point about standards, the standards for what we will import
are written here, not in other countries.
Sir (Rochford and Southend
East) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State, as well as the civil
servants, who may be watching on television back in the
Department or—heaven forbid—may be even closer by? I remind her
that she sent me to Indonesia for a G20 trade meeting, and at
that time it looked as if we were going to do a deal in years,
not months. Other than her excellence and my departure from the
Department, what brought about the speed of that change, and what
lessons can be learned for other deals?
I thank my hon. Friend for all his hard work as Trade Minister
and on continued strong bilateral relations with Indonesia. I may
have misspoken—I think I might have meant Thailand when I said
Indonesia in relation to the long list of countries that we are
accessing—but he will be pleased to know that a lot of work is
being done to continue strengthening economic ties and relations.
These are all countries in the Indo-Pacific; they have huge
populations and love the UK, not just because he has been
visiting and touting all our good works—although that has played
a large part in it—but because of the soft power and good
diplomatic and global outreach of our civil servants, whom he
mentioned, and our diplomats worldwide.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
I was worried by the Secretary of State’s answer to the right
hon. Member for Leeds Central () on what we would do if China
asked to join. Given the work that has been done in this House,
particularly on the Uyghur genocide and on the abuses of human
rights and democracy in Hong Kong, I hope that she will join
those of us who want to hold China to account. The idea of giving
China preferential tariffs right now, or at any point in the near
future, is unconscionable. Does she perhaps have warmer words for
Taiwan, which has tentatively expressed an interest in joining
the trade group, and will she consider having a positive thing to
say for Taiwan if it wished to do so?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know what she is trying
to do, and I appreciate the effort, but it is not my job, as
Trade Secretary, to make foreign policy at the Dispatch Box on an
agreement that China is not in. These are hypothetical,
speculative questions. They are serious ones, but I am not the
Foreign Secretary and it is not for me to answer them. We have
had multiple debates in the House about the economic challenge
that China presents, as well as on many other issues relating to
China, but it has not even joined the bloc. Throwing our weight
about and saying who we would or would not block is not the right
way to go about things. However, I am very happy to extend warm
words about Taiwan. She will know that Government Members have
done and said a lot to ensure that it continues to do well
economically. It is not for me to go into specifics; it is best
for me to be appropriate in the remarks that I make at the
Dispatch Box on international diplomacy and foreign policy.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
I very much welcome the agreement. As the Secretary of State
knows, we have fantastic manufacturing industries in
Stoke-on-Trent. In particular, our world-renowned ceramics
industry has fantastic products that it is waiting to export.
Will she detail the opportunities for these industries to export
more of their fantastic wares around the world?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Federation of Small
Businesses has said that there are significant export markets for
small UK firms. Once we have signed the agreement and have all
the legislation in place, he will be able to talk about the trade
utilisation of the agreements that the Department for Business
and Trade supports. If Members have businesses in their
constituency that want to find out more, the best way to find out
the specifics for their sector would be to contact their local
DBT—as it is now—representative.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
I look forward to questioning the Secretary of State on the
agreement in more detail at a meeting of the International Trade
Committee later this week, because detail is thin on the ground
at the moment, although I am sure we will get there. She has
mentioned that she cares greatly for sovereignty and the
environment. In the negotiations, what concessions were asked for
with regard to excluding us from the threat of the ISDS and
excluding palm oil, or did our negotiators not even raise those
issues?
The key point to explain is that the investment chapter in the
agreement includes investor protections, and they are backed by a
modern and transparent ISDS mechanism. It is not quite correct to
say that there is no protection for investors; we are just doing
it in a different way.
(Totnes) (Con)
It is always funny hearing the Opposition speak about our trade
deals, because since they last brought the issue to the House, we
have signed a memorandum of understanding with Indiana, North
Carolina and South Carolina; made a deal with Israel, Australia
and New Zealand; and got a ratification and an improved deal with
Japan. We also continue to look at the Gulf Co-operation Council,
and now we have CPTPP.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on her work on the trade
agreement. She talks about the agriculture community; can she
confirm that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will have a
role in scrutinising the agreement? She also mentioned that under
the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, there will be
the opportunity for the House to scrutinise the agreement. Will
that have to be done within 21 days? Will we have a vote and a
debate on the agreement on the Floor of the House?
I am very pleased to confirm to my hon. Friend that we will
present CPTPP to Parliament for scrutiny for 21 days after
signing, as per the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act,
which he mentioned. Relevant Committees will also get time to
scrutinise the accession. He will know that we have updated the
International Trade Committee regularly at both chief negotiator
and ministerial level since the launch of negotiations in 2021. I
look forward to all the additional scrutiny that I know that he
and other colleagues will provide.
(Arfon) (PC)
Many exporting businesses would welcome, as the Secretary of
State put it in her statement,
“reduced red tape and simplified customs procedures across the
bloc”.
However, they want it rather closer to home, I think. Businesses
such as Seiont Nurseries in my constituency find that the only
practicable way of exporting plants to Ireland is via England,
Belgium and France, before finally reaching our near neighbour—a
country that is actually visible to us across the Irish sea. Can
the Secretary of State tell the House in any detail how this
agreement will benefit small exporting businesses in north-west
Wales?
It will benefit businesses in north-west Wales in exactly the
same way as it will benefit all the nations of the UK—this is not
a deal that is particular to any one nation. The hon. Gentleman
should tell his businesses about the words of the many business
representative organisations and larger company representatives
who have been talking about what a fantastic deal this will be
for this country; we are happy to provide some of those quotes,
if he is concerned. The Windsor framework has made this deal even
easier by ensuring that Northern Ireland in particular is not
left out and has just the same benefits as all the other nations
in the UK—in fact, more benefits.
(North West Hampshire) (Con)
Laurels in abundance are due to the Secretary of State and her
team for a significant achievement. The urgent need to reorient
our economy to the east was one of the many reasons why so many
of us voted to leave the European Union.
On 3 November, I asked the then Minister of State, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (), about the place that lamb and
sheepmeat and UK lamb and sheep farmers played in the CPTPP
negotiations. Will the Secretary of State outline the benefits to
those specific producers of sheepmeat that she has achieved in
this deal, so that I can reassure the farmers of North West
Hampshire—and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom—that our
fantastic British lamb will appear on tables across the
world?
My right hon. Friend will be very pleased to know that I have
good news for his sheep farmers, which is that we have created
more liberalised market access for them in many of the CPTPP
countries. That includes some countries with which we already had
deals, but now there will be staged liberalisation—in countries
such as Mexico, in particular, there will be significant
benefits. As I said earlier, we know that exporting is what will
be most helpful to our agricultural sector, and ensuring that
farmers in my right hon. Friend’s constituency have more markets
and deeper, broader markets to export to is one of the reasons
why I am very proud to be supporting this deal.
(Crawley) (Con)
Unlike the distinct lack of opportunity and ambition among
Opposition Members, I very much welcome the UK’s acceding to the
CPTPP—it is a real commitment to the Pacific region and to global
Britain. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the
future share of the global market of the CPTPP versus that of the
European Union?
Quite a significant assessment. As I said in my statement, CPTPP
is a trade bloc with over 500 million people and a collective GDP
worth £9 trillion, but compared with the EU, it is growing
faster. In terms of GDP, the partnership is projected to grow
faster than the EU, with the countries currently in the CPTPP
expected to increase in size by nearly 60% over the next three
decades, compared with 42% for the EU.
One thing that I really want to emphasise, because there seems to
be some confusion about this in the broader narrative, is that
this is not a deal to replace our deal with the EU. We already
have a free trade agreement with the EU—we did not leave with no
deal—so we will be the only country that has such a comprehensive
EU free trade agreement and is a member of CPTPP. That is quite a
unique and fantastic position for the UK economy to be in, so I
hope that that is something I have been able to clarify for
Members across the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
The prize for patience and perseverance goes to .
(Peterborough) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I remind the House that I serve
as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and the UK. CPTPP will bring the UK into
an exclusive global free trade bloc with Canada, Australia and
New Zealand, on top of individual trade agreements of varying
depth with each country. Free trade co-ordination between Canada,
Australia and New Zealand and the UK is one of the three key aims
of the CANZUK campaign. Does the Minister agree that this
alliance is another step closer to what is, I believe, the
desirable outcome of stronger economic, diplomatic and cultural
ties between all CANZUK countries?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the point very well
that CPTPP comes on top of bilateral trade agreements. There are
many assumptions that if there is already a bilateral deal, there
is no additional benefit from CPTPP, but that is definitely not
the case—there is an additional benefit of having a broader
market. I talked about the rules of origin and being able to use
components from different countries, but he is right about the
geopolitical perspective and how we can look at our security, and
at our economic security in particular. We can look at things
such as critical minerals, where we have just signed a memorandum
of understanding with Canada, and the supply chain there. There
is a lot of good work being done to help integrate us with
like-minded partners around the world.
|
