HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A 0AA

The Rt. Hon Liz Truss

Secretary of State
Department for International Trade
3 Whitehall Place, Westminster
London SW1A 2HP

6th April 2021

Dear Liz,

As you get ready for this important post-Easter period of negotiations on new trade agreements
for the UK, I want to wish you well in those endeavours, and reiterate the Labour Party’s
support for deals that will break down tariff and non-tariff barriers for British exporters, and
help goods and service companies in every region and nation of our country make their
contribution to the recovery in trade, growth and jobs that our economy so badly needs.

It is especially vital that those trade agreements open up export markets for fast-growing UK
sectors, from professional services and science to construction and green technology; that
special effort is made to help small businesses and digital start-ups take advantage of the new
opportunities on offer; and that we also do whatever is necessary in each negotiation to protect
and promote the competitiveness of our farming communities and manufacturing firms.

Those will all be crucial objectives when you begin formal negotiations on the UK’s accession
to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) later
this Spring, but it will also be crucial that the terms of our accession do not disadvantage our
country in other unforeseen ways, or restrict the future sovereignty of Parliament to act as it
sees fit for the good of our citizens, our environment and our public services.

And unlike the other trade talks you are currently leading on our country’s behalf, you do not
go into the negotiations on CPTPP accession with a blank sheet of paper, but with an existing
treaty whose provisions we can already see. What we do not know is which provisions you
plan to accept, which you will seek to amend or improve, what the implications of those choices
are for the UK, and whether the founding members of the CPTPP will allow you that leeway.

You will have noted the consultation on new accessions to the CPTPP launched by New
Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade last Thursday, which stated clearly: “New
members...will need to comply with the existing CPTPP Agreement. The text of the Agreement
will not change. Current rules and obligations...will not change.” Unfortunately, that sounds
like a recipe for the UK to end up as a rule-taker in the CPTPP rather than a rule-maker.

1
In the attached document, you will find more than 235 detailed questions concerning the
provisions of the CPTPP agreement, and the proposed accession process. By answering these
questions, I hope you can provide reassurance that you are approaching these negotiations in a
way that will maximise the benefits for Britain of joining the CPTPP, minimise any risks, and
build a strong public and parliamentary consensus behind the proposed terms of accession.

With that final point in mind, the last question in the attached annex asks you to consider
whether it would be sensible to re-open the public consultation on joining the CPTPP, once we
know the terms on which you are proposing that the UK should join. After all, the previous
2018 consultation exercise elicited only 55 bespoke responses from business, and your own
subsequent surveys showed that only 21% of the British public knew what the CPTPP was.

Moreover, there is one particularly vital issue that was not even considered a possibility at the
time of the 2018 consultation, which is the increasingly serious prospect that China may apply
to join the CPTPP. Just this weekend, that proposal was mentioned favourably in the formal
statement by South Korea’s foreign minister when he visited his Chinese counterpart, as South
Korea weighs up submitting its own application later this year.

As spelt out in the attached document, this raises numerous questions, the first and foremost of
which is whether the UK will be granted the right to veto China’s membership if we complete
our accession before they begin theirs; and if so, whether the government would intend to
exercise that right? You have said the UK has no plans for a bilateral trade deal with China,
but is not the greater risk that such a deal could take place by the back door, via the CPTPP?

In addition, the very prospect of an application from China could also have serious implications
for Britain’s accession. Will the other CPTPP members be willing to accommodate our requests
for exemptions or amendments if that means having to grant similar leeway in negotiations
with China? If they instead insist that all new candidates must stick strictly to the existing rules,
as New Zealand indicated last week, in what areas could that cause us problems?

This is just one of the factors which was not considered during the original consultation, and
which I hope you will agree would benefit from renewed discussion with business, civil society
and members of the public prior to accession. After all, there is nothing to fear, and everything
to gain, from having an informed debate about the next major steps we take as an independent
trading nation, especially one as important as joining the CPTPP.

With that in mind, and as a first step, I look forward to receiving the serious and detailed
answers that the attached list of questions deserve.

Yours sincerely,

The Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP

Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade
2