Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministerial Statement

UK Accession to CPTPP

22 February 2024 · 5 other contributors

Opened by Liam Byrne Lab Birmingham Hodge Hill

BrexitBusiness & Trade

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Liam Byrne raised concerns about uk accession to cptpp in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • Liam Byrne, MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, delivered a statement on the Business and Trade Committee report.
  • Byrne noted the UK faces challenges in negotiating free trade agreements since Brexit.
  • The UK's progress towards pre-Brexit trade goals is not on track according to Byrne.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Government Statement

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne, Member of Parliament for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, delivered a statement regarding the report by the Business and Trade Committee on Monday. The report coincided with the reflection period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 concerning the CPTPP. Byrne highlighted the challenges faced in negotiating free trade agreements since Brexit, noting that the UK’s progress towards its pre-Brexit goals is not on track. He cited issues such as the lack of clear economic benefits from deals like the Australia agreement and uncertainties about future negotiations with India. Byrne emphasised the need for transparency regarding CPTPP's potential gains, which are estimated at £2 billion annually by 2040 but may be uncertain due to outdated models used in impact assessments. He also pointed out that while joining CPTPP offers geostrategic benefits, these come with economic uncertainties and limited market access compared to the broader Indo-Pacific region. Byrne stressed the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, recommending a debate on ratification within the 21-day CRaG period.

Other contributors (5)
  • Tan Dhesi Lab Slough

    Question

    On behalf of the Labour party, Tan Dhesi thanked Liam Byrne and other members of the Business and Trade Committee for their work. He noted Labour’s concerns about issues such as workers' rights and investor-state dispute settlement expressed in amendments tabled during the Bill Committee stage. Dhesi questioned whether it is imperative to address these concerns before final ratification, emphasising that doing so would be essential for national interests.

    Minister reply

    Liam Byrne responded by acknowledging Tan Dhesi’s points and noting that while the CPTPP has been subject to significant scrutiny, there remains a need for better parliamentary oversight in scrutinising free trade agreements. He stressed the importance of ensuring that economic models used are up-to-date and reliable. Byrne recommended holding a debate on ratification within the 21-day CRaG period to allow proper scrutiny of the treaty.

  • Sarah Olney Lib Dem Richmond Park

    Question

    During the passage of the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill through this place, many concerns have been raised about investor-state dispute settlement arrangements. It is good to see that the Select Committee is calling for a debate to resolve some of the contentious issues around that. However, does the Select Committee Chairman consider the provisions of the CRaG legislation to be sufficient, or might this be an opportunity to look again at how the specific requirements of trade deals are dealt with by Parliament?

    Minister reply

    That is an excellent question. The hon. Lady may have seen a really good report produced by not our Committee, but the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on 29 January 2024, which makes precisely that point. We need a better way of scrutinising trade agreements. The CRaG structure allows us to delay things, but not necessarily veto them. When CRaG was introduced back in 2010, it was an innovation, because in the past, that was something that Governments did without any scrutiny whatsoever. Now we are in a different kind of world, in which we are signing free trade agreements at, I hope, increasing pace. However, the House will still have to navigate when we want open trade, when we want to de-risk trade, and when we put economic security first and free trading second. These are dilemmas in which there is not an obvious answer. We cannot prejudge the answers to those questions; they will have to be debated case by case.

  • Richard Foord Lib Dem Honiton and Sidmouth

    Question

    Farmers in the west country were alarmed at the sorts of concessions made in the Australia and New Zealand trade deal. Until yesterday, we thought that the UK and Canada were negotiating a roll-over trade agreement. Canada is a member of the CPTPP and it will be crucial, if the UK-Canada trade talks resume, for the UK to avoid paying twice, because we will want to avoid further market access concessions. Can the right hon. Gentleman offer any reassurance that, through CPTPP accession, we will not open up our markets to unmanageable volumes of produce that will damage British farming and put farming businesses in danger of going out of business?

    Minister reply

    The way that we approached our analysis was to look at food standards and whether they would be diminished by our joining the treaty. The Trade and Agriculture Commission looked at three questions, which are talked about in paragraphs 40 to 42 of the report. We reported the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s advice, which was that there would not be a diminution in the statutory protection of food standards in this country, and that we would, in fact, be allowed to reinforce some of those protections. However, as the hon. Gentleman importantly flags, we are now finding that sometimes the devil is in the detail. Despite having joined CPTPP with Canada, we now appear to be struggling to get in place a free trade agreement with Canada. The reassurance that I can give him is that we do not see this treaty lead to a softening of the trade standards that we so treasure in this country.

  • Greg Hands

    Question

    I welcome the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and his report. I think that this is the first time that I have had an interaction with him since my return to the Department and since he became the Chair of the Select Committee. Of course, as two former Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, we are well used to a bit of sparring over the years. His report is good, strong and constructive, and he makes some strong points about FTAs being, of course, choices. I welcome his statement that CPTPP has been well scrutinised in this House. My only question for the right hon. Gentleman is really just a clarification. He says that CPTPP represents 15% of the Indo-Pacific area, which I think is true in the sense that China and India are not in CPTPP, and that therefore it is quite a small economic bloc. But if I can just take issue with him, CPTPP is currently about 12% of global GDP and the UK joining would make that 15%. So he is not wrong in what he says, but if he could just acknowledge that the part of global GDP in CPTPP is also 15%, not just a portion of the Indo-Pacific trade.

    Minister reply

    I am grateful to the Minister for that question and for welcoming the report. We look forward to welcoming him before the Committee at some point in the near future to talk about some of our forthcoming reports on export-led growth. The point he makes is right and I am glad that, for once, he and I agree on the numbers—that has not always been the case. The reason we wanted to flag it is that the Government’s impact assessment states: “CPTPP membership acts as a gateway to the wider Indo-Pacific region which is expected to account for the majority…of global growth between 2021 and 2050.” We appreciate that all Governments need to hard-sell their policy achievements—that is the nature of the game we are in—but it is important that we do not oversell the treaty. The reality is that it accounts for only quite a small fraction of the Indo-Pacific market, which is trumpeted in the impact assessment and in the integrated review as one of the treaty’s virtues. We must be clear-eyed and hard-headed about precisely what gain comes from this treaty specifically, and it would help us all, frankly, if the Government set out their road map for growing the treaty in future.

Shadow Comment

Tan Dhesi

Tan Dhesi, Member of Parliament for Slough and Labour MP, thanked the Business and Trade Committee for their work and expressed concerns about the CPTPP agreement. He highlighted Labour's amendments tabled in the Bill Committee regarding workers' rights and investor-state dispute settlement. Dhesi argued that before final ratification, it is crucial to address these concerns to ensure they do not harm national interests.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy