I will not get drawn into the debate on that, but I think that would be 1,800%, rather than 180%. However, the point is that the noble Lord is right to raise the matter of the estimated expected costs compared with the actual costs today, and the deflationary impact of global trade on some of our developing nation partners and the importance of ensuring that it can be mitigated in some way, regardless of the other trade deals that we are pursuing. I am grateful for his point.
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Johnson of Lainston
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 14 December 2023.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
834 c361GC 
Session
2023-24
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-02-23 14:40:20 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-12-14/23121447000007
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-12-14/23121447000007
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-12-14/23121447000007