My Lords, Amendment 8A builds on Amendment 8 to some extent because it also relates to geographical indications, and if there is to be further information from the Government with regard to the interaction with trademarks, I look forward to seeing it. It is linked. As someone who lives in and represented a consistency in Scotland, I know that there are particular aspects with regard to the Scottish and Welsh Governments and geographical indications in those areas. Indeed, it could well be that there are trademarks for certain products in those areas. If we are now in a situation where there is to be wider use of other CPTPP countries’ trademarks and geographical indications that are not to be policed under this treaty, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised are valid. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but they are valid. I cannot speak on behalf of the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government, nor would I wish to, but the issues that they have raised are important.
Mine is another probing amendment and, indeed, another reporting amendment because it is seeking reports on how businesses are operating in what is potentially a more complex environment in addition to better market opportunities. Ultimately, where the treaty is going to be a success or failure is in whether our businesses understand what opportunities are available to them or whether they decide that there are more complexities in utilising some of the agreement than there will be economic benefits for them. For very small businesses that may be valid, given, as we know, that it is not the tariff aspect of this agreement that is important but the non-tariff aspects. Regular reporting on the protection of UK GIs in this market will therefore be very important. As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to GIs there are no more protections under this agreement, but the interaction with how we will be able to export very important UK GI goods will be vital.
The Minister will be well aware that very many businesses manufacturing products that benefit from an EU-protected UK GI are small businesses. Melton Mowbray is one example, as was mentioned, but there is a whole series. They are small businesses—some are micro-businesses—and therefore the complexities involved will require government help. Guidance and support will be vital for them. We know, because we debated it at length on the Australia agreement, that the protection of UK GIs in Australia, as it will be in many areas, is dependent on the European Union policing them, because that is a consequence of the UK agreement with the European Union. Our ability to police the protection of our GIs now resides in Brussels. That may or may not be desirable, depending on your particular persuasion, but it is a fact. The relationship and interaction with the European Union on this will therefore also be very important. GI protection for UK accession to the CPTPP is reliant on the European Union. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what discussions he has had with his counterpart, the European Trade Commissioner, about how the EU is minded about doing us the wee favour of protecting our goods in the CPTPP agreement. Is there a written understanding when it comes to UK accession to CPTPP that the Commission will police our goods for us because that is the situation in Australia?
Given that the vast majority of the CPTPP countries have trade agreements with the European Union, it will police both: it will police its champagne and our pork pies. I wonder which it will give preference to? Of course, they match, and they should have equal status for protections, but I would be grateful to hear what response the Minister has had to his pleas that the European Union will protect us.
2 pm
The second aspect is rules of origin. I sometimes try to do a Lansley but fail when trying to understand some of the technical nature of this. My understanding of the rules of origin for the CPTPP is that there will be a different method of calculating regional value content, as opposed to that which we have agreed through the UK-EU TCA—I am happy to be corrected on that. On the face of it, the rules of origin accumulation is positive, and it could allow businesses to benefit from a wider and, potentially, a deeper supply chain with goods.
The calculation mechanisms, however, are different. Therefore, if a business is operating under a supply chain under the CPTPP and operating under a supply chain with the European Union—indeed, many of these will be the same supply chain because of the EU’s existing agreements with these countries—it will be asked to calculate the content value differently. I understand that, under the CPTPP, it will be a build-up or a build-down mechanism; these relate to the maximum and the minimum amounts of local content. The European Union uses a different calculating method for non-originating materials, under a maximum non-originating percentage. If the Committee is still with me, this will mean that, when businesses self-certify and are operating in the same market with the same customers, they may have to operate with two different ways of calculating the value content, depending on whether they are from the EU or the CPTPP. Obviously, for some businesses and large operations, this may not be an issue at all: they will just have their advisers or consultants who are able to do that, and the methods of record-keeping, verification and certification will be fine for them. For others, however, this will be a complexity, and I am interested to know whether this has been factored into the Government’s assessment of how businesses will utilise the elements of the rules of origin for the CPTPP.
Given that the vast majority of this will be self-certification, are we satisfied about the veracity of how that document keeping, verification and certification will be carried out? I believe there are potential areas of significance for this, not just in how we police how this will be operated but in whether businesses will take the opportunity. I believe that it is likely to be one of the principal non-tariff barrier elements that we will need to resolve if we are to see utilisation of the agreement. Therefore, I hope the Government will accede to there being a regular report so that we are able to identify problems that need to be overcome and challenges with the dual system that will be operated. Fundamentally, if we are diverging from one—the EU—does that create complications with the other and vice versa? I beg to move.