My Lords, let us deal with this Second Reading issue. My understanding of the Companion is that there is no need to have spoken at Second Reading. It is very nice that noble Lords have apologised but there is no need; all are welcome in Committee, even if they did not speak at Second Reading, and so noble Lords do not need to give excuses for why they were not there.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, touched on a point about restrictions. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies is a neat way of dealing with a number of the issues that will arise and that we will need to deal with. Let us take environmental principles
and look at a number of the countries that we will be joining with in CPTPP. Take pesticides, which I am sure will come up again in the next group, on our second day in Committee. PAN UK analysis conducted in 2021 revealed that there are 119 pesticides, active substances, that we have banned in the UK to protect our health and environment but which are still permitted in one or more of the CPTTP member countries. Of that total, 67 are classified as highly hazardous pesticides. If these pesticides are used in these countries just now, and we have banned them in this country for very good and sensible reasons, how do the department and the Government protect consumers and farmers in the UK? The way to do that is very neatly set out in the amendment laid by my noble friend about taking note of this and the Secretary of State having to deal with it.
2.30 pm
There are many other factors, such as child labour and labour standards, which we do not accept in this country. If they are accepted in other countries, they can then be used to undercut manufacturers and businesses in our country. We need some form of protection that sits across that as well. More amendments are coming on day 2 that will deal with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, explained that his amendment is a probing amendment that would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament. The fundamental question goes back to comments that were made as part of this debate. If there was a full debate in Parliament, would such a report be necessary? It is possible because we are looking one year, 18 months or two years down the line. The noble Lord’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report on protections for UK GIs and accountability of the self-certification of the rules of origin in each CPTPP country. Notwithstanding the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the date and timing of that, this again seems an eminently sensible amendment. Once we have gone through accession, we should look back to see the effect on our GIs and our businesses.
The intellectual property chapter covers multiple forms of IP, including patents, geographical indications, copyright, trade secrets, trademarks and designs, as well as their enforcement. The text sets minimum standards of protections across these areas, creating a shared baseline of protection in CPTPP parties’ domestic regimes. Again, that is eminently sensible.
Most of the other points have been covered. I look forward to the Minister’s response.