UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Daniel Hannan – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baron Hannan of Kingsclere)

    Daniel Hannan – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baron Hannan of Kingsclere)

    The speech made by Daniel Hannan, Baron Hannan of Kingsclere, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    My Lords, I refer to my declaration in the register of interests as president of the Institute for Free Trade and an adviser to the UK Board of Trade. I had not been aware prior to this debate that we were also expected to make familial or genetic declarations of interest, but for the record I have a large family in New Zealand, a lot of whom are Labour voters. We are about as distant as we could be geographically, but about as close as we could be in every other respect. Actually, some of them have moved to Australia, as many Kiwis have done, where they can very easily work under the terms of the ANZCERTA deal between the countries. I hope that we will work towards the long-term goal of going deeper than we have with these treaties and try lateralising ANZCERTA. We share extraordinary closeness and interoperability economically.

    It is also a huge pleasure to welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Swire, whose wit, effervescence and largeness of spirit will delight our debates and elevate our counsels.

    I am asked on occasion whether I have any regrets about Brexit. My chief regret is very easily stated: it is that it was followed by an unpleasant culture war through which prism we still judge almost everything. It is extraordinary that six and a half years after the debate, questions such as this are still being approached fundamentally by where people stood on the original referendum. I am not talking about people who are against trade in general. I am not talking about the Trumpsters or the Corbynites or those such as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has always been very clear that she does not much like free trade. She wants self-sufficient communities, and she sees the exchange of goods as a contingent necessity and a necessary evil—fine. She has been completely consistent in that position in all the interventions she has made in your Lordships’ Chamber.

    I would, however, address those who see themselves as generally supporting the liberal order and the free exchange of goods and services. I put this general question to them: would you judge the Bill in the same way if it were a trade deal between the EU and Australia and New Zealand? Would you still be talking about getting swamped by cheap food and so on, or would you be celebrating its provisions?

    When my right honourable friend Liam Fox was at the Department for International Trade, he did a series of opinion polls and focus groups and found a fascinating switch in opinion—a polar switch if you like. The kinds of people who had previously been the most in favour—the most open and liberal—in their attitude to commerce had now begun to associate global Britain with people and arguments that they did not like, and were therefore falling back into these protectionist and mercantilist arguments about standing up for our producers. Happily, the opposite was also true: a certain type of UKIP voter who, 10 years ago, would have been grumbling about whether the French should be able to own our energy companies had become much more in favour of international trade.

    Let me address the people who are in favour of trade in general; let us leave aside the people who think it is a bad idea. Is there anything in the Bill that you would seriously object to were it not for this ongoing culture war? I will not rehearse in full all its advantages; we have already heard them from my noble friend the Minister, who really knows his onions, as well as his Australian iron ore, his New Zealand lamb and his trade and tariff quotas—rarely has someone been so fitted to the ministerial office by their interests and enthusiasms. The fact that we have the removal of 100% of tariffs is, of course, a very good thing and has attracted more comment than almost everything else, but I would say it is virtually the least important aspect of the Bill.

    We are not in the 19th century, when we were mainly interested in foodstuffs and manufactured goods. We could look at the provisions of these treaties on mobility, which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was generous enough to acknowledge as a major positive: the ability of people who speak the same languages and have similar qualifications from, often, the same educational institutions to work without hindrance in each other’s economies. We could look at the provisions on services; we always think of financial services, but there is also shipping, architecture, and the audio-visual sector. We could look at the rules on cross-border data, on investment and, indeed, on procurement; it is extraordinary that the British companies will effectively be treated as if they were Australian or New Zealand companies for large measures of procurement in those countries. This is an extraordinarily successful negotiation. Yes, of course it could go further, and we will all find one or two aspects with which to disagree, but there is no world in which we are worse off after the Bill than before it.

    I would like to address some of the criticism that we have heard in this Chamber and outside its walls. Something that we heard from a number of noble Lords was the mercantilist objection. People have said that this is an asymmetric Bill; that we are lowering tariffs faster on this side than on the other side. Good—that is the advantage of trade; it means that you can buy stuff cheaper. I am amazed by how many people think of themselves as free marketeers but, in the post-EU context, struggle or affect to struggle with this point.

    I think of the number of times I have been asked, “We are letting in all this Australian beef—what are we getting in return?” The answer is that we are getting the beef: high-quality, nutritious and excellent beef. If you do not want it, do not buy it; that is the basis of how a market system works. The idea that you judge a country by its trade surpluses—that exports are the only thing that matter—was debunked by Adam Smith, but it continues to come back as a zombie argument in every generation.

    I have big trade deficits with all the pubs around me in the Hampshire-Berkshire borders—with the Watership Down, Bel and the Dragon, and the White Hart in Overton. Sometimes they engage in dumping; they will say, “Have a free glass of wine if you have a meal on a Monday,” or whatever. Who gets the better end of that deal? There is nothing wrong with getting cheaper imports; that is what drives the economy. It means that people spend less money on the basics so they have more resources to spend on everything else; that is what drives growth.

    That brings us, rather neatly, on to the farming or NFU objection. The NFU is in this curious position now where it opposes trade deals with everyone except the European Union. It does not phrase it like that, but that is the practical position it has taken. It does it by deliberately conflating what is allowed in other countries for domestic purposes, and trade deals. We have had a bit of that in the Chamber today: “Australia permits x or y and we do not like it”. Yes, but that does not affect our own standards of what is permissible and may be sold here. No country has ever tried to insist on exporting its own production standards, as opposed to its own food standards. The EU has never done so and, by the way, if we did so—if we consistently said we would not import food unless the production standards were identical—we would not have a free trade agreement with the European Union because we diverge in a number of areas from the EU. No one has ever done that, and it is mischievous to suggest that somehow, that could be done in this case. We are talking about countries with high welfare standards, countries very similar to our own.

    I ought to address the hill farms question because it is important. The people who are stewards of our upland areas perform a service for the rest of us that goes well beyond food production. They are looking after a common resource: a beautiful countryside. It is a difficult thing to monetise. We drive past it and it looks very nice. It is what economists would call an externality. If we regard that as an important service, then we should reward them directly for doing so, and that has nothing to do with the levels of tariffs on New Zealand lamb. In some cases, these hill farmers will be getting more than 50%—significantly more in one or two cases—of their income from the Government in direct grants. There is an argument for being more generous, but their income will not be affected by the levels of tariffs we have on Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, when it comes to beef, the beef currently being imported from Ireland and France will instead be imported from the Commonwealth. It will have almost no impact on our domestic producers.

    On food miles, the point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others that we should not be trading with distant places, other things being equal, and we should try to do everything as locally as possible. We live in an age where geographical proximity has never mattered less. When the European Union was founded, there was an argument for regional blocs, but advances in refrigeration, the internet and cheap air travel have completely revolutionised the situation. There have been studies of the environmental impact of importing New Zealand lamb. Astonishingly, it turns out that New Zealand lamb eaten in London has a smaller carbon footprint than Welsh lamb eaten in London.

    That may seem counterintuitive, but think about it. First, the overwhelming preponderance of carbon production is in the food production phase—on the farm. The things that make the Kiwi farmers efficient, the economies of scale and so on, tend also to mean they use less fertiliser, less heating and so on. By being cheap, they also make themselves more environmentally friendly. The very same thing that noble Lords were complaining about—the imbalance—tends to make things cheaper. In terms of transport, if we think about the size of one of those tankers, the tiny proportion of it take up by one lamb chop, and the efficient route it takes it straight from port to port and then to distribution, that is a very different thing from driving a small number of bits of frozen meat from a remote hill farm. So, even in the transport phase, often, there is no difference. I wonder how much of the argument about food miles is results driven or based on resentment of the fact that we are in this situation at all.

    Finally, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone—whether trade deals should be about the environment and democratisation—we all share her concern about those things. Who does not want a cleaner environment and the spread of democracy? But we should be careful of a category error: these are not things to be squeezed into a trade deal as a coda. The more important they are, the more they should be dealt with in their own right with an international treaty. In fact, if I have a criticism of these two deals and of the DfIT’s approach so far, it is that it has been too ready to get into areas that have nothing to do with the removal of trade barriers and to have chapters on indigenous rights in New Zealand, or whatever. That is a perfectly valid and important issue but it does not belong in a trade agreement.

    Let us not lose sight of what we stand to gain. Your Lordships’ Chamber is, in a sense, our national institutional memory and it is our duty to recall the things that worked and that raised this country to success. Few things are more clearly in that category than free commerce and free exchange. We invented in theory with the writings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo; we then invented in practice as the first country to remove tariffs, from the 1840s. We did so unilaterally because we understood that the biggest advantage in trade was allowing prices to fall, so that our people were better off and would have more wherewithal to drive economic growth. Let us be worthy of the deeds of our ancestors. Let us pass on their success to our descendants.

  • Richard Fletcher-Vane – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (2nd Baron Inglewood)

    Richard Fletcher-Vane – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (2nd Baron Inglewood)

    The speech made by Richard Fletcher-Vane, 2nd Baron Inglewood, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to this debate, with its splendid opening from the Minister and the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. I have learned a lot about things I did not know much about before. But, since we are declaring interests rather like throwing confetti at a wedding, I ought to say that my cousin is married to a very senior New Zealand diplomat. I assure your Lordships that, when we meet on social occasions, we do not talk about the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill but plenty of other more amusing topics. I should also declare that I am a Cumbrian farmer and we have a hill farming enterprise. I am also patron of the United Kingdom Livestock Auctioneers’ Association, president of the National Sheep Association and chairman of the Cumbria local enterprise partnership.

    I will divide my comments into three parts: scrutiny; free trade agreements; and the impact on farming. I am not sure that I have a lot more to say about Parliament’s role and the wider public scrutiny of trade deals. In the world we are in now, even if the letter of the law is followed, the wider process is inadequate and needs root and branch reform. The royal prerogative should not be used as a fig leaf to cover up important political and legislative initiatives, which have far-reaching domestic implications. In many ways, the process is worse than the criticisms of the workings of the EU. We need to revisit the whole thing, from the basis of not what happened in the past but what is necessary in the future.

    On free trade agreements, which I understand are being proposed as a replacement for the EU single market, the underlying problem is that they may be a replacement but they are not a complete substitute. Much of the criticism of the single market and its rules came from those who do not have supply chains of the kind many businesses have, in particular much advanced manufacturing. These supply chains are extremely complicated and often very long. Physical proximity is, on many occasions, very important. For example, someone in London must be more likely from choice to do business in Newcastle upon Tyne than with Newcastle, New South Wales. It is a reality. In this context, geography matters. Fine-tuning and dispute resolution are much easier when you are close to hand.

    Indeed, I had an example of this kind of problem only this autumn. My farm is replacing its dairy parlour. For the new system we are adopting, we decided that the best product was a New Zealand parlour, which we organised. It was due to be in the boat for three months—this is the kind of point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made. Bad weather got in the way and after about four months we were getting really very worried about the whole progress of our contract.

    In any event, free trade areas and single markets are distinctly different. Free trade areas do not of themselves permit goods allowed through the tariff wall of another country to be traded on an equivalent basis as domestically produced goods. Non-tariff barriers can be and are at least as significant as tariffs in inhibiting trade, as has been pointed out. In short, the point of a single market is frictionless trade. The purpose of the European single market, devised, as we know, principally by Lord Cockfield, a Conservative Cabinet Minister and European Commissioner, through the 1992 programme, was to achieve that. That was the purpose of the whole exercise, because the then European internal market was not delivering the benefits to the public which were hoped for and which it was felt capable of delivering, which had been advocated in perhaps too sanguine and hyperbolic terms—possibly, dare I say it, slightly along the lines of some of the Minister’s opening remarks.

    The evidence of trade in the 1990s clearly showed that this worked, which was endorsed by the Government’s helpful The UK and the Single Market topic paper of 2011, which predicted a similar trajectory along the lines of household income gains of 2% to 6% per annum. Clearly, this has gone into reverse. Interestingly, the recent statistics that I have seen for the Cumbrian economy, where, as I said, I chair the local enterprise partnership, suggest the general accuracy of that assessment from 2011. The new good things—let us not overlook the fact that there are good things—do not begin to off-set the damage that has been done.

    Clearly, although any free trade agreement with our friends—as has been said, Australia and New Zealand are our friends—is unlikely to damage our prosperity, it cannot recapture all that is lost. We have now left the European Union. There is a tabula rasa in front of us. The single market is not the same as the European Union, be it in whole or in part. As a matter of urgency, we have to try to seek a better trading relationship with our neighbours for the reasons that I have touched on.

    Finally, I turn to farming. As I explained, I am a farmer in the red wall area. I am a hill farmer; part of my business is hill sheep. I have done that for a lot of years—if I am allowed to give people some financial advice, if you want to make money, do not try that. The crucial point from the Cumbrian perspective is that farming is an important and significant part of the local economy, which together in harness with the visitor economy becomes a very important part of our economy, which is struggling under all the obvious and various difficulties these things face. This sector has to be a focus of the levelling-up agenda. It is just as important as some of those that have been specifically targeted. I am afraid that the Government have been extremely quiet about their approach to this important sector of the economy in a part of the country that is in need of all the help it can get at present. That is not to say that nothing good is happening; good things are happening, but there are still enormous problems.

    Against that background, I ask myself: what then are the Government doing even contemplating allowing agricultural products into our market which are produced to lower welfare and environmental standards than those stipulated here? I am not complaining, and I do not think anyone else can complain, about competition on a fair and even-handed basis in the marketplace, but this is not. It looks potentially positively discriminatory against the UK producer. I do not think we should forget quite how clear it was made in the debates in this Chamber on the then Agriculture Bill how strongly the country as a whole wants high environmental and welfare standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a point about mulesing. I just do not think it is an acceptable practice for farmers selling meat into this country. The public would not entertain it.

    What is more, there is the question of extraterritoriality. Here we are trying to stipulate certain conditions on trade which will have a direct impact on another country. That is something that is completely accepted. If we look back at the Ivory Bill, which we discussed in this Chamber not that long ago, we will recall that its whole point was to change a series of environmental activities and actions somewhere completely outside the jurisdiction. That is something that we are familiar with, and I do not think we should be concerned about taking steps to do so if it is right in the circumstances.

    The Government have said that all these animal welfare and environmental things are basically de minimis and we do not need to worry about them, but we all know that this is what Governments always say when they are skating on thin ice and cannot think of anything better. However, if that really is the case, why are the provisions there at all? If they actually do not matter, surely the counterparties will be only too happy to clarify things and to agree. I say to the Government: reassure the public and the farming community about this because if you do not, given what I am afraid to say is the mess of the current agricultural policy, it is kicking a man while he is down. I was told many years ago that one of the significant differences between France and Britain was that in France the ministry of agriculture was on the side of farmers and rural communities. Does this state of affairs not suggest that this may still be the case now? Like a number of other speakers in this debate, I have real reservations about a number of aspects of the Bill. However it is achieved, the outcome should be not as projected by the Government. Amendments are necessary, be they in this Bill or in the Procurement Bill.

  • Anne McIntosh – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baroness McIntosh of Pickering)

    Anne McIntosh – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baroness McIntosh of Pickering)

    The speech made by Anne McIntosh, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    I welcome this opportunity to speak at Second Reading. I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Lansley and add my congratulations to my ever-youthful noble friend Lord Swire on his maiden speech. We look forward to many such contributions in future.

    I have no known relatives in Australia or New Zealand, but I have close friends there who are, bizarrely, of Danish heritage. The House will remember that I am half-Danish; obviously, I took great interest in the fact that, 50 years ago last week, Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland joined the European Union, on 1 January 1973.

    On a general note, I accept that no one can deny the importance of our relationships with Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries in relation to trade, security and other aspects. However, as noble Lords who have referred to the importance of those relationships will accept, those countries are a very long way away. Historically, geographically and perhaps more normally, our natural trading partners over the past 50 years—notably the European Union—have been closer.

    Although I welcome the Bill before us, it seems to lend itself to being fairly asymmetrical, favouring foreign imports over domestic producers here. While we are told that the Bill is necessarily largely technical in nature, it is thin in substance; the Minister used the word “flexible”. I echo the sentiments of others who have spoken—notably our two august former trade commissioners to Australia, both of whom spoke very eloquently—about the impact of the lack of scrutiny on trade deals, such as is enjoyed in large measure in the US legislatures and the European Union, which we left only recently. I also support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others on the key role to be played in this Bill and others by the Trade and Agriculture Commission; we must ensure that it has all available resources and expertise.

    If one is in any doubt about the perhaps limited nature of the agreement before us, let me refer to the Government’s own impact assessment estimates. The impact assessment in relation to the New Zealand deal states that the UK’s

    “agriculture, forestry and fishing and semi-processed foods sectors are expected to experience a reduction”

    in gross value added

    “of around 0.35% (£48 million) and 1.16% (£97 million) respectively.”

    As regards Australia, that impact assessment states that the UK’s

    “primary agriculture and semi-processed foods sectors are expected to experience a reduction”

    in gross value added

    “of around 0.7% (£94m) and 2.65% (£225m) respectively relative to baseline growth in the sectors.”

    The Government estimate that as a result of the Australian deal we will see a reduction in gross output of around 3% for beef and 5% for sheepmeat due to liberalisation. This is equivalent to wiping £87 million off the output of UK sheep production and £67 million off the UK beef sector and does not take into regard the cumulative effect of agreeing similar liberalisation terms with New Zealand.

    The trade figures for October show a decline in trade with non-EU countries, which obviously is a source of concern in the context of the Bill before us. I had the honour of representing for 18 years in the other place a deeply rural constituency in North Yorkshire with a proud tradition of producing spring lambs and fatstock beef. I fear that with the potentially asymmetry in this Bill, they will be damaged in the long term by the lack of a permanent safeguard clause. I will revert to that as one of my asks of my noble friend and his department in the context of the Bill this afternoon. I echo my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, who recognise the concerns to be faced by sheep farmers and particularly by hill farmers and fatstock producers across the UK and that those concerns must be addressed sooner rather than later.

    In terms of Commonwealth trade, once Britain, Ireland and Denmark acceded to the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973, I understand that a trade deal was done with Australia, New Zealand and other members of the Commonwealth through the African, Caribbean and Pacific agreement. This has been updated periodically, most recently in European partnership agreements. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, initially mention was made of the importance of sugar in trade and obviously the vital importance of trade to certain Commonwealth countries. Initially, a stable price was set for sugar, which was replicated in other products.

    I again pay tribute to my mentor, the late great Lord Plumb, who was president of the NFU, the first and last British President of the European Parliament, and co-president of the assembly for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. He played a central and crucial role in these negotiations. Can my noble friend clarify the position under the Bill, which was raised in Oral Questions this afternoon, regarding products emanating from Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth and, now we have left the EU, third countries? Will those products meet the same standards of production, particularly in terms of animal welfare and environmental protection, as our home-produced foods?

    I take great comfort from the commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto of 2019 that British high standards of animal welfare and environment would be maintained and that they would be replicated in imported food and food products. Can my noble friend the Minister take this opportunity to reconfirm and echo the comments made by our noble friend Lord Benyon, who, answering at Oral Questions, assured us that our free trade agreements, such as those before us in this Bill, will never conflict with stated UK policy in this regard?

    The promise of open trade was, as I said, mentioned in the manifesto. It was repeated during the Conservative Party leadership contest in summer 2022 by my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak, now the Prime Minister. He made a commitment at that time that 50% of all publicly procured foods supplying local authorities, our schools, hospitals, prisons and defence establishments would be locally sourced. He went further, and I will quote his letter following his meeting with the NFU during that leadership contest in terms of international trade:

    “I know that farmers are concerned by some of the trade deals that have been struck, including with Australia. I will make farmers a priority in all future trade deals. On my watch, we will not rush through trade deals at the expense of farmers. They will take as long as they take, and we will not water down our standards. We will also build on existing support mechanisms to help farmers export to the world’s emerging markets. We will maintain the high standards of animal welfare, environmental protection, and food safety.”

    I support those desires and wishes of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will also support them when winding up this debate.

    There is disappointment—as my noble friend Lord Lansley, other noble Lords and I discussed at length during the proceedings on the Trade Act, and more recently the Procurement Bill, during this Parliament—that the wishes of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister seem to have met insurmountable obstacles in meeting our domestic public procurement target for 50% locally sourced food. I hope that I can rely on my noble friend’s good offices to ensure that that target is met going forward.

    I conclude by seeking assurances from the Minister today that, for the wine and spirit producers—who welcome this Bill, as do I—a separate chapter will be opened and the Government will vigorously apply for export opportunities for UK wines and spirits to both Australia and New Zealand. I understand that the New Zealand agreement is preferable, as it allows for a committee to improve trade in UK products without reopening the agreement. I would be very interested to learn why that same provision was not available for the Australia agreement.

    I seek the further assurance for UK farmers and consumers that our high levels of food production will be maintained and that inferior products will not be allowed entry. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that hormone-produced beef and pesticide-induced crops may form part of the produce to be imported under the procurement provisions of the Bill before us. Neither would be acceptable to UK home production.

    I also ask for the assurance that local authorities and military establishments will have the opportunity to source locally produced food to at least 50%, as previously sought by our Prime Minister.

    Finally, I seek the assurance that an adequate and permanent safeguard clause will be introduced and that all the relevant statutory instruments, flowing directly or indirectly from this Bill, will be adopted under the affirmative procedure.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2023 Speech at the Centre for Social Justice

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2023 Speech at the Centre for Social Justice

    The speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, at the Centre for Social Justice on 10 January 2023.

    Can I thank the Centre for Social Justice for hosting me this morning.

    I want to pay tribute to the work the CSJ has done on pushing the issue of addiction up the political agenda.

    This is a cause close to my heart. I’ve spoken openly of the impact alcohol abuse had on my late father and I have raised thousands of pounds by running London marathons for the children of alcoholics’ charity NACOA.

    Today I want to talk about the importance of helping people back to work and outline new reforms and new thinking to help get Britain working again.

    But I want to start with my dad. He was a working-class man, but in in the 1970s started a job as a croupier in the Manchester Playboy Club casino.

    It was there he met my mum, then a Bunny Girl waitress who also worked two or three jobs at a time waitressing in Manchester bars and restaurants.

    Appreciate Manchester casino talk is not the most obvious topic for the CSJ but the point is those jobs meant the world to my mum and dad.

    Not just a wage but it was about opening doors to new horizons, aspirations and hopes for the future.

    And in the 80s the periods of worklessness they went through was crushing, demoralising.

    I was young but I remember the haunted looks on faces in the old grey dole office as my dad queued with me by his side.

    So, for me unemployment is never a price worth paying.

    And that why helping more people into good quality work is my priority.

    Today over a million people are out of work despite wanting a job. Yet employers are struggling to fill over a million vacancies.

    Employment is lower that pre pandemic and we have seen the biggest drop in the employment rate of the major G7 economies

    A great number of those who have fallen out of the workforce have done so because of ill health while other have taken early retirement:

    2.5 million – an increase of half a million, suffering long term sickness

    Just under two thirds of people out of work for ill health are living with a mental health problem such as depression, anxiety or stress

    Long term sickness has risen fasted in younger age groups, with the biggest increase for mental health

    Poor health is increasingly a reason for many of over 50s to leave employment as well.

    Being out of work is bad for health and the longer someone is out of work for reasons of sickness, the more difficult it becomes for them to return to a job.

    And we all know the longer a young person is left workless as increasing numbers are now because of ill health, the greater the risk of a life on the margins.

    To do nothing about, as is currently the case, means writing people off.

    Its means tolerating a situation where only around 4 per cent of people in the Employment Support Allowance support group return to work each year – to me that’s totally unacceptable.

    It’s nothing less than a monumental waste of the potential of the British people.

    And it’s both a social cost and a significant economic cost too, undermining economic growth and leaves taxpayers with an increased health-related benefit bill – which the Office for Budget Responsibility projects will see an £8 billion increase – as well as the cost of healthcare support and lost tax revenues.

    No responsible party seeking government can duck this challenge.

    We need new reforms and to apply new thinking to welfare to change lives, spread opportunity and helping people find appropriate, supportive, rewarding, well paid quality work.

    It’s good for them, good for society and good for the economy. I want to be clear. For people who can’t work, they deserve security with inclusion not fear or threats. A Labour government will always guarantee that.

    But when we know there are hundreds of thousands of people currently out of work and economically inactive who may want to participate in employment with the right support, then we owe it to them and their families to give them a fair chance to participate in decent employment.

    So a Labour government will modernise job centres, shift resources and guarantee local innovation in the design and delivery of employment support services, and transform the social security confronting the hindrances to work currently in the system.

    In contrast under the government’s approach only one in ten of out of work disabled people or older workers are receiving any support to find work. That’s frankly a scandal.

    And for many who do interact with DWP programmes, they are left wary of employment support services and Jobcentres, too often experiencing them as a combination of benefit policing and one-size-fits-all exercises like CV writing classes that they doubt will be of any help.

    It’s because ministers sit in Whitehall imposing different programme after programme on local areas – regardless of the local economic needs of a community.

    These various programmes, as a recent analysis found, amount to a massive £20 billion across 49 different employment and skills related schemes administered by 9 different government departments and agencies.

    I simply don’t accept we are getting bang for our buck.

    Instead we have a bewildering spaghetti junction of a fragmented system of different nationally imposed schemes with duplication and confusion failing to achieve the promises ministers make.

    There are better ways of spending this money, better way to designing the support on offer, better ways of setting priorities to deliver better returns.

    Keir Starmer said last week a Labour government shift power and resources out of Whitehall to every corner of the country.

    Because local action makes a difference and its local people best placed to design and shape employment support services to meet the needs, challenges and opportunities of their communities.

    Where some limited local design has been allowed in pockets of the country, such as the inspirational ‘Working Well’ initiative in Greater Manchester there have been real successes at helping those with complex barriers move into employment.

    Our reforms will build on success stories of partnership with the voluntary and private sector working at a local level. But we’ll go much further.

    We’ll shift resources to local communities, not just for people who are temporarily or long term unemployed but also for people with more complex barriers as well.

    Through our reform plans, we will ensure local areas put in place targeted support for the most vulnerable, guaranteeing genuine tailored help for those out of work to overcome the barriers they face.

    Taken together our reforms will mean local areas themselves can build the integrated employment and skills support they need to stimulate economic growth, get more inactive adults including the long term sick and over 50s back into the labour force, help more adults into high-skilled, better paid work, and address the labour market needs of businesses and the local economy.

    We will expand employment support for those will ill health by ensuring partnerships exist between employment support programmes and local health services.

    We will also include sweeping reforms, as our shadow employment minister Alison McGovern is developing, to modernise Jobcentres too so they become new hubs that – yes continue to support people navigate their social security entitlements, and help with job search and retraining, but also bring a focus to work progression, no longer just a conveyor belt to low paid work but act as escalator to better jobs with security.

    Thirdly, as people are helped to thrive into work, we will support people to thrive at work.

    For example, many older workers with a chronic health condition or caring responsibilities for a loved one say they would benefit from more flexible work options. Under our plans Jobcentres will help broker flexible opportunities.

    Crucially we will also reform the Access to Work scheme where the waiting lists for an assessment have trebled and people now wait months for a decision.

    For example, a constituent of mine was told to expect a 26 week wait for an assessment recently.

    These waiting times are preventing people taking jobs and even losing jobs. It’s shameful.

    Under our changes, people looking for work will be able to apply without a job offer, and be given an ‘in principle’ indicative award so that both they and their future employers know what support will be available for them if they find a job.

    Finally, the social security system should support – not hinder – people’s journeys to work.

    But too often the system disincentivises work, making even considering trying to engage in possible employment too much of a risk.

    So we will reform the Work Capability Assessment regime that leaves people trapped out of the workplace, out of the workforce and limits their potential. These assessments can be arduous, lengthy and stressful.

    Many people with ill health simply do not want to risk having to go through the whole benefits application and assessment process again if things go wrong.

    Let’s take away that fear and distrust which prevent so many from engaging with employment support and attempting a move into work.

    A Labour government would guarantee that people in this position who do move into employment with the help of employment support will be able to return to the benefits they were on without the need for another lengthy assessment process.

    A Labour government will tackle the barriers faced by the long term unemployed and economically inactive, bringing people back into productive labour market participation.

    We’ll get Britain working again and target the highest employment in the G7.

    These reforms are part of a fundamentally different and new approach, where we prioritise wellbeing and security above all when helping people into work.

    We’ll do this by offering genuine quality, tailored support for those who want it with help to explore the opportunities available and what might be appropriate.

    We’ll provide people with more independence, inclusion and fulfilment.

    For people who cannot work we guarantee security.

    For people who do want to work we’ll stand by them throughout any steps they are able to take, as they journey into employment.

    We’ll be there to support people if things don’t work out.

    They will help lift families out of poverty, make our economy more prosperous, and most importantly of all change lives, offer opportunity and give people hope for the future.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech in Belfast on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech in Belfast on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The speech made by Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, at Queen’s University Belfast on 13 January 2023.

    Thank you Ian for that introduction.

    It is always an honour to speak at Queen’s – so I’d like to thank the President and Vice-President for the invitation today.

    This is a special place. A first-class university for research, technology and innovation, business and health.

    An institution that has always been rooted in its communities here in Belfast and in Northern Ireland, but which also enjoys a huge global reach.

    A reach never more on display than in the appointment of your Chancellors and we can see them on the walls here today.

    After all, who better to carry the message of peace this city embodies around the world, than Hillary Clinton?

    I’ve been here to Queen’s many times. In fact, I remember the last time clearly because I was half way through my speech, the United Kingdom announced a vote on Article 50…

    What a relief that’s all behind us now.

    That day, I came here to reflect on the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland…

    And my role as the Human Rights Advisor to the Policing Board which oversees it.

    I’m immensely proud of the work of the board, of that whole period in my life.

    It’s given me a lasting love of Northern Ireland. Friendships that have endured, including people in this room here today, memories I’ll always cherish.

    And you know – after we were married, my wife and I took our first holiday here, because I wanted to show her Northern Ireland, the people and the communities that I’d met.

    I was in love with this island and that love has stayed with me.

    It’s also taught me so much about politics, about change, about the power of hope.

    And this year is a moment of reflection for Northern Ireland and, speaking for myself, standing here in 2023, It’s hard to describe just how different it feels to the Northern Ireland of 20 years ago, when I first came to take up my role here. How raw the emotions were back then, in a country still coming to terms with its hard-won but fragile peace.

    I wanted a chance to serve – because it felt like a huge moment.

    A chance to turn the page on decades, if not centuries, of pain, and I wanted to make a contribution. Help create a lasting institution.

    One that could reach out to all communities, hold the police to account, and in doing so help preserve that peace for future generations. I think we did that.

    Accountability, transparency, human rights, the framework we put in place was critical for both communities to have a degree of faith.

    That the Police Service of Northern Ireland was new, was different, was worth those risky first steps.

    We were tested of course – every day.

    As Tony Blair said at the time – every advance made in the name of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement has to be “ground out”.

    But over time, policing in Northern Ireland did change. The PSNI did become an institution which enjoys cross-community support, Catholics did sign-up to serve.

    Not enough – in Northern Ireland, you can always point to the work that still needs to be done, but, if you’d said to us then, in 2003, that in 20 years we’d have the PSNI we have today.

    That one day, a Sinn Féin leader would stand shoulder to shoulder with unionist leaders, in a campaign to help recruit new officers, yes – that would have felt like an achievement worth celebrating.

    And there are people here today who deserve huge credit for helping make that happen.

    This year, should be a year we celebrate achievements like that.

    All the achievements – big and small – of the Good Friday Agreement.

    25 years of relative peace, prosperity and a better Northern Ireland.

    It’s a proud moment for me, reflecting on the small role I played in that.

    And it’s obviously a huge moment for my party. The Good Friday Agreement is the greatest achievement of the Labour Party in my lifetime, without question.

    But of course, the real achievement – the real pride – belongs to the people and communities here in Northern Ireland.

    It’s your bravery, your determination, your courage, resilience and yes, your willingness to sacrifice, to compromise, to stand, despite everything, in the shoes of other communities.

    And above all – to keep doing so when there were bumps in the road, provocations, outbreaks of violence. That’s what won this peace.

    It’s why I fell in love with this place – I’d never seen anything like that spirit, that hope.

    I talk a lot about hope at the moment.

    About how hard it is for people to get through the challenges we face without the real possibility of something better.

    How, as we lurch from crisis to crisis, we’re losing our faith that the future will be better for our children.

    Some communities in the United Kingdom might once have taken that for granted – but not here.

    Because what I saw in Northern Ireland 20 years ago, were people and communities experiencing that hope for the first time.

    It’s what powered the Good Friday Agreement – drove the communities of this country on towards the history they made.

    And we’ve got to get it back.

    Because I get the sense – with the protocol, with the political situation at Stormont, not to mention the other problems we see here: the NHS, the cost-of-living, an economy on its knees.

    That the thought of April being a true celebration feels a little on ice.

    I understand that.

    Anniversaries are hard in Northern Ireland, looking back is hard.

    Even when we do so with pride, as we should in April – it’s tough.

    The past is a painful place for so many people, so many communities.

    People have suffered a lot. And with that comes a fear.

    Fear that if we stop trying to move forward – if things grind to a halt – then we could yet go backwards.

    It’s why, here more than anywhere, you always need that hope of a better future.

    That’s the spirit of 1998, that’s what the Good Friday agreement asked of people.

    It wasn’t to forgive, or forget – they were demands that could never be made.

    It was only to look forward. To commit to a journey. Walk, step by step. Each stride difficult, each stride precious, towards a better future, together.

    The anniversary this year should be a true celebration – people deserve that.

    History was made here, hard-won.

    But to respect that history, people also deserve action on the issues which currently hold Northern Ireland back. For politics to do its job and give people the chance to look forward with hope.

    There is a small window of opportunity before April – we’ve got to use the anniversary to fix minds.

    Get the country and its political process moving forward again.

    Deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

    I see two key priorities for this.

    They’re both urgent, both need to happen now, and so of course they rely on a change of direction from the Prime Minister.

    But in each priority, I also want to show the values I will bring to Northern Ireland, if I have the honour to serve as Prime Minister.

    First – the British Government must normalise and strengthen relationships with Dublin.

    The Taoiseach held out an olive branch in recent weeks – we must take it.

    But honestly, relations should never have been this strained.

    Brexit was a rupture in the UK’s diplomatic stance, a call to change, in every area of our society, which had to be recognised.

    I’ve been very clear about this – my Government will make it work, will take on the mantle of that vote, will turn its slogans into practical solutions.

    Yet throughout the last seven years, nothing has been more self-defeating than the determination of some Conservative ministers, to see our friends in Dublin as adversaries on Brexit.

    That has damaged the political process here in Northern Ireland – no question.

    And it’s certainly not the spirit of 1998.

    We should never lose sight of what binds us together on these islands – our shared commitment to peace here above all other considerations.

    So I encourage the Prime Minister, as the Taoiseach has said, to recognise past mistakes.

    It will help him with the second priority, the obvious one – the protocol.

    Look – there’s no point varnishing the truth, to get beyond the current stalemate we have to make the protocol work.

    Nobody wants to see unnecessary checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    We just need to find a solution.

    And I want to commend the recent agreement on trade data-sharing, commend the EU, commend the Government.

    If they are finally serious about a deal, there will be no sniping from us – I can promise you that.

    I go back to the Good Friday Agreement – the pride we feel in the Labour Party towards it, has no bounds.

    But we know the political effort didn’t come just from us, from Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam, it didn’t come just from Bertie Ahern and Mary McAleese, from the unwavering support of the US – of Bill Clinton and George Mitchell, or the tenacity and brilliance of John Hume and David Trimble.

    It was also built on the work of John Major and Albert Reynolds, and afterwards by Lord Patten – whose commission led to the PSNI and the Policing Board, in the first place.

    My point is this – the spirit of 1998, on both islands, is not one of tribal politics.

    This is the process which brought Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness together – and they made it work – there can be no clearer example than that.

    So I say to the Prime Minister, if there is a deal to do in coming weeks – do it.

    Whatever political cover you need, whatever mechanisms in Westminster you require, if it delivers for our national interest and the people of Northern Ireland – we will support you.

    The time for action on the protocol is now.

    The time to stand up to the ERG is now.

    The time to put Northern Ireland above a Brexit purity cult, which can never be satisfied – is now.

    We can find ways to remove the majority of checks – a bespoke SPS agreement, a monitoring system that eradicates checks on goods that will only ever be sold in Northern Ireland.

    The opportunity for these reforms is there – and they would deliver for communities and businesses across these islands.

    Northern Ireland can be prosperous under the protocol.

    But it requires leadership from you, Prime Minister.

    And look – I enjoyed my dialogue with the DUP and unionist parties yesterday, so I want to reach out on this, speak to all unionist communities.

    There are legitimate problems with the protocol and these must be recognised in any negotiations.

    And as for the process that got us here, to this point, I think your anger about that is more than justified.

    I said this yesterday, I will say it here and I want every community in Northern Ireland to hear it – the Labour Party will always be a good faith guarantor of the constitution and the principle of consent.

    That commitment is written in to the agreement we want to celebrate in April – it stands above politics, it should stand above Brexit negotiations as well.

    I think people know we would have done things differently, and that we will stand by those values when in Government.

    But I also say this – in the coming weeks, it’s possible there will be siren voices in Westminster that say again, there is another path, a path that doesn’t require compromise on the protocol.

    In fact, it’s possible those siren voices will include – may even be led by – the very people who created the protocol.

    That were cavalier with the constitutional settlement of this United Kingdom.

    That came to this island and acted – to be blunt – in bad faith.

    You can listen to those voices, of course, it’s not for me to determine the interests of any community here.

    But I would counsel that the example to follow is not theirs. But the spirit of negotiation, of conciliation, of courage, that, in the end, is always the force which moves Northern Ireland forward towards the future.

    That’s what I want to do in April – look forward.

    Northern Ireland is personal to me, the Good Friday Agreement is personal to me.

    The drift, the lack of momentum, the elevation of ideological politics above the constitutional settlement – that would never happen with my Labour Government. Wouldn’t happen with any Labour Government.

    It’s not how we approach politics on this island.

    It’s not how my predecessors helped broker peace.

    My ambition as Prime Minister would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the hope I saw here in 2003, the sort of hope you can build your future around, that aspirations are made of.

    And which can – as we’ve seen for 25 years – bring communities together.

    Ordinary hope and ordinary politics – that’s what the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

    And we will govern by their example.

    When things get tough, we will persevere.

    Embrace the spirit of 1998.

    Keep our eyes fixed firmly on the future.

    A future of peace and prosperity.

    Partnership between Britain and Ireland.

    And a politics which delivers for every community in Northern Ireland.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Lansley – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baron Lansley)

    Andrew Lansley – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baron Lansley)

    The speech made by Andrew Lansley, Baron Lansley, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend for these purposes, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, as we are fellow members of the International Agreements Committee. I ask noble Lords to bear with me, as I am the fifth member of that committee to speak in this debate. I hope not to repeat too much of what my colleagues have said but, in so far as the scrutiny of these two agreements is concerned, the committee in this place was able to produce a report in June last year, which was debated here on 11 July. To that extent, I think that many of the criticisms of the scrutiny of these deals were of the other place, rather than here. They have been scrutinised here, as was demonstrated by that debate, in a timely fashion under CRaG.

    My friend the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred again to the importance of the Government having a trade policy document, and referenced the New Zealand Trade for All strategy. This was the first agreement entered into by New Zealand after the publication of that policy document. That demonstrates the benefits of a high-quality document. I was rather struck that noble Lords have been quoting George Eustice, the former Secretary of State at Defra, who I will refer to later. It was important when he said that we should look at strengthening the role of Parliament in scrutiny and perhaps even agreeing the negotiating mandate. My noble friend Lord Frost referred to that. As he said, countries such as Japan and the US, and the European Union, all use their parliamentary processes to their advantage. As my noble friend said, we do not want disagreements to be suppressed within government and then erupt afterwards, with Ministers saying, as George Eustice did, that we gave away far too much for far too little in return. I do not happen to agree with him but that is not the point. We should be able to see what the Government’s objectives are in trade policy—not necessarily the detailed negotiating trade-offs but certainly the objectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, we can illustrate that by reference to examples. We ask about matters such as the Government’s approach to investor-state dispute settlements but all we get in reply is, essentially, the conclusion that they have reached on any individual negotiation, not what the Government’s approach is in general.

    The result was different in different agreements, depending upon the approach of the other counterparties. There are a number of illustrations of that. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, chair of the EU Affairs Committee, was here a moment ago. That committee and the International Agreements Committee have a right to expect that we are consulted soon about what the Government’s policy is in relation to carbon border adjustment mechanisms and the implementation of emissions trading schemes, not only between ourselves and the European Union but on the impact that the policy will have on our trading policy more generally. If we do not do that, we will find that, as a consequence, it is potentially one of the largest non-tariff barriers being erected across the globe, alongside the issue that the noble Earl raised about the Inflation Reduction Act in America.

    This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. In the rest of what I have to say, I want to focus on the Bill itself. This has been a great debate, and I have much enjoyed it, not least the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Swire. We overlapped for only 14 years in the other place. I hope that perhaps we will overlap a little longer in this place—who knows, as he is not 74? It is a great pleasure to have him here and the benefit of his experience in our debates.

    It is not in my register of interests, but I should say that my sister-in-law is a sheep farmer in north Wales. Even over Christmas, she did not raise the question of the Australia or New Zealand trade agreements with me at all, so I do not know what her view on these may be—just as well, perhaps.

    Those of us on the International Agreements Committee welcomed these agreements as being of high quality and demonstrating what can be achieved; that is also my personal view. There is a feeling that some of the 32 chapters were included without sufficient substance and that the substance will have to be added over time. For example, I thought that the innovation chapter in the agreement with Australia was a very good thing, but we will not know what it is going to mean for some time to come. I hope it will mean something pretty substantial.

    This Bill simply provides the power to implement the procurement chapters—chapter 16 in each of the two agreements—and it is necessary because the powers are not there already. Once the Procurement Bill passes, the powers will be available in that legislation to do this by statutory instrument in the future; the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, made this point earlier. The Procurement Bill means that we will not see primary legislation for purposes such as this in the future. I think that is probably correct, because the changes in our domestic legislation are relatively modest. In future, this kind of thing should be done by statutory instrument, as long as—taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—it is done by an affirmative procedure, because there will be a whole range of changes. The other place implements the tariff changes, and this place looks at things such as the procurement changes and a whole raft of others, but we should be doing such things by affirmative procedures wherever possible. That will enable us to exercise some control if need be—if there is a serious problem—at each stage. I hope that the ratification process will be under way by then; we will have seen it under CRaG. If there are serious problems associated with an agreement, we should know beforehand.

    I said I wanted to refer to George Eustice again; I am going to mark the card of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in advance of his speech, because he referred to George Eustice’s speech at Oral Questions. The point that George Eustice was making was that he believed a problem with the agreements was that they could lead to hormone-fed beef coming to this country but that this would also be possible under the CPTPP. I do not think he is right about that. In any case, it is not a problem associated with the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements; it is an issue we need to address in the CPTPP. That is when it comes up. What is the dispute resolution mechanism under the CPTPP? If necessary, that would need to be addressed by our Government in the context of that agreement itself.

    I took part in the passage of the Procurement Bill and tabled amendments which would have limited the nature of the repeal of this Bill by that one in due course. The problem is not that the Procurement Bill will take future powers instead of this Bill but the way it repeals it. The Procurement Bill will repeal:

    “An Act of Parliament resulting from the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons on 11 May 2022.”

    So if we amend this Bill, it will be repealed by the Procurement Bill in due course. This is not a satisfactory procedure. The assurances that we received in this House from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe during the passage of the Procurement Bill were that, if we amend this Bill, the Government will look to ensure that any necessary changes might be made to the nature of the repeal during the passage of the Procurement Bill in the other place. I ask my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston simply to reiterate, if he may, that same reassurance.

    I am not aware of a necessity for amendment. In the other place, the Official Opposition supported the Bill, and the amendment they were looking for was for further impact assessments. As my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister rightly said, the Government have committed themselves—and I hope my noble friend will further commit the Government—to two-year monitoring reports and a five-year comprehensive evaluation of both agreements. Frankly, that should be sufficient for this purpose, so I do not think we need to amend the Bill to make that happen.

    From my point of view, there are issues that we have raised and issues that I feel strongly about in the agreement. For example, there is the fact that we managed to get an agreement with Australia before the European Union did; perhaps that is one of the benefits of Brexit. However, is it not ironic that, for example, the geographical indications element of our agreement is wholly dependent on the European Union securing changes in the Australian geographical indicators regime so that we might take advantage of it? It is ironic and regrettable. It is just one more of the many illustrations of how we want to see what our trade policy should be and, in future, to see that we scrutinise not only the deal that the Government return with but the negotiating mandate that they take with them in the first place. In those circumstances, I think we would find our overall scrutiny and the support we were able to give to the Government’s trade policy all the better, all the stronger and probably all the more effective internationally.

  • John Montagu – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (11th Earl of Sandwich)

    John Montagu – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (11th Earl of Sandwich)

    The speech made by John Montagu, 11th Earl of Sandwich, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    My Lords, I shall start with enthusiasm, but I may not be able to keep it up. The Australia and New Zealand agreements have been trailblazers among the FTAs post Brexit and I am glad that the Minister and the International Agreements Committee, to which I belong, have helped to see them through government as well as Parliament. They are, in general, excellent and productive agreements with two old friends and allies which bring undoubted benefits to this country across the whole spectrum of goods and services.

    We should also acknowledge the co-operative attitude of the Government, or the various Governments, to our committee and our various reports. I thank successive Ministers for recognising the critical role of Parliament in scrutinising these agreements—the new Secretary of State’s response to our Australia report has confirmed this—but the CRaG process itself is inadequate, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have said so well already. The committee itself has pointed out several times, over nearly three years, that to have any useful role we have to assess the negotiation objectives of an agreement right at the start. The noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, said that the Government have everything to gain by this. We also need to discuss the outlines of the agreement, without of course giving away any of its content, in which case the NDA process would be involved. I am not convinced that Ministers have gone far enough to meet these requirements but, since we have had more than one change of personality, maybe we will be better understood in future. Our relationship is still being developed. We have not yet received the response to our New Zealand report, and when we do, the horse will have long bolted.

    I recognise that this is a somewhat artificial procurement Bill due for instant repeal, but it seems appropriate to make concluding remarks on the FTAs themselves, as others have. On the content, we were concerned about three issues on Australia in particular: agriculture, the environment, and the role of the DAs in both these agreements. I suspect that none of us was wholly satisfied with the way these three issues were handled. I shall use the helpful “Myth” and “Reality” sections in the DIT explainer accompanying the Bill. On agriculture, HMG persist in saying that 15 years of TRQs and safeguards provide sufficient protection for UK sheepmeat and beef producers, simply on the grounds that “it is unlikely” that Asian and Pacific countries will cease importing Australian meat. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, for example, said this was much too long and that we need adjustment and competition. On the contrary, it is just the sort of thing that could happen given an unfavourable political climate in China or elsewhere in Asia. It remains unsettling for farmers planning ahead. Here I also speak as an NFU member.

    On animal welfare, it is quite true that standards are going up and the TAC did provide convincing reassurance, as the Minister said, that Australia was raising its animal welfare performance. However, the Government admit that they are raising standards only to the level of many other countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the procedure of mulesing, for example, and she should know. It seems that higher standards apply only to RSPCA-approved farms, so there is still a way to go.

    On pesticides, Defra says that the results of monitoring are published after consideration by its Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food. Public concern about residue levels seems to us to justify a more specific monitoring exercise relating to Australia, and perhaps the Minister could say if this will be undertaken. Apart from this, the side letter on GIs and the chapter on SMEs are both to be welcomed as promising support for small businesses, including farmers. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, mentioned migrant workers which was extremely helpful because it has not been covered.

    Moving to the environment, I say that the new Government in Sydney are likely to prove much more positive about climate change, although it is too late for the FDA itself. Our Government claim that illegal logging will be tackled under the agreement, but there are no policy statements or details as to what happens in the separate states of Australia. It is another case of wait and see and further monitoring. Australia’s reliance on coal remains a major issue, but the Government have promised that the committee will receive reports and updates over time. This is welcome, and perhaps the Minister will confirm it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is no longer in her place, pressed the Government on monitoring, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond fully.

    I need say only one word about the devolved Administrations. This has been said time and again and I am surprised it has not come up today: devolved matters are not just matters for consultation. They are integral to the national policy of each of our member nations. This means that agriculture in the DAs comes right at the front of negotiations. This did not happen in the case of these agreements. I believe the Government still claim that the DAs have been fully engaged. Of course, the overlap of policy in different departments does make life more difficult for them.

    I have touched on only three issues, and I have left New Zealand to last. On agriculture, environment and climate, New Zealand is and has been a model country. We can learn a lot from her. I recognise the other benefits that have come in, such as extending copyright—another thing not mentioned—and the growing importance of motor vehicles and machinery in UK exports by value under this agreement. New Zealand has been a model in one other respect: it has published an exemplary policy document summarising its aims and objectives in trade agreements, including more difficult issues such as human rights. I could spend some time on this, but I will not. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said that trade is not a watertight department. It is surely natural to discuss wider policies with friends who are also our trading partners. The Minister knows from our recent meeting that most of us in the committee have strong views on this. As we have heard today, we are hoping that the Government will take them seriously.

    Finally, I should add that our application to the CPTPP will be greatly assisted by these two FTAs, while providing access to new markets in Asia and standing up to China, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, given all his experience, fluently reminded us. But that will be a subject for another day.

  • Edward Lister – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baron Udny-Lister)

    Edward Lister – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baron Udny-Lister)

    The speech made by Edward Lister, Baron Udny-Lister, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    My Lords, it is a real pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. It will enable the Government to get on with the job of implementing the FTAs that have been secured with both Australia and New Zealand, two of our closest historical allies. I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests in the register.

    I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for his introduction, in which he set out clearly the benefits of the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Swire for his maiden speech.

    It is important to note, and to underline, that the agreements are the first the UK has negotiated from scratch in almost 50 years. That demonstrates that, at long last, the UK has started to unshackle itself from the restraints of the single market and to embark on its own independent trade policy, which will develop growth right across these islands in time.

    As a member of the International Agreements Committee, I have followed both trade deals with much interest as they have passed through the long-established and thorough scrutiny processes of our parliamentary system. On that point, there has been much commentary already this afternoon about whether the Government have fulfilled their scrutiny obligations. Having been involved, playing a very small part, in the scrutiny of these deals, I for one am satisfied that the Government have gone above and beyond in providing this Parliament with a plethora of opportunities to examine the details and to get involved in the process of making sure that our free trade deals deliver for all. Indeed, if we compare the passage of these deals with that of the Japan FTA back in 2020, it is evident that the Government have not only exceeded their statutory obligations on the sharing of materials but are continually putting in place more and more opportunities for Parliament to provide effective scrutiny. When it comes to assessing the future impact of these FTAs, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House of the Government’s commitment to publishing both a monitoring report and a compressive evaluation report at the appropriate time?

    Throughout the passage of these FTAs, much has been propagated on the topic of agriculture. Last year, when your Lordships took note of the fourth report from the International Agreements Committee, I warned the House that the National Farmers’ Union, among others, had repeatedly tried to peddle the myth that these agreements would fail to deliver for British farmers and that our standards would somehow be eroded over time. Like my noble friend Lord Frost, I am concerned that the long lead times before we get true trade running in agriculture will slow down the benefits of cheaper food. Although I acknowledge that there are challenges for our hill farmers, these two things have to be resolved; we need a solution.

    I put it to your Lordships’ House, as I did in July last year, that the Government have been highly successful in achieving significant safeguards for British farmers, namely through tariff rate quotas, product-specific safeguards and bilateral safeguard measures. The Government should be commended for securing these safeguards for the most vulnerable parts of the UK farming community.

    That said, it is important to note, however, that both Australia and New Zealand have systems similar to our own. With that comes the ease of upholding the UK’s long-established and globally renowned standards. As we progress additional trade agreements with countries such as India and Mexico, and when we eventually start going into South America, it will become increasingly hard for us to secure such safeguards. I therefore hope that we can use the experience gained in these negotiations to uphold our standards in the future, and I wish the Government well with that endeavour.

    Importantly, the implementation of these deals will be an important stepping-stone in our accession to the CPTPP, the benefits of which for the UK are well known: joining one of the largest trading blocs in the world and having access to a vast network of modern deals spanning the Americas and Indo-Pacific. With Australia and New Zealand as leading members of the CPTPP, supporting the UK’s bid for membership, we should not be looking at this Bill as simply the ratification and implementation of two well-negotiated deals, but as a fundamental component in the UK gaining future access to a free trade area encompassing 11 strategically important states, with a combined GDP of £8.4 trillion.

    When evaluating the impact these deals will have on the UK’s nations and regions, I am filled with optimism and excitement, especially for our SMEs. It is evident that the Government have worked hard to ensure that both London’s and Scotland’s financial service industries will directly benefit from these deals, while also ensuring that thousands of jobs are set to be created in the north-east and that tariffs are reduced for textile exports in Northern Ireland.

    On examining the details of both deals, I am convinced that there will be a UK-wide benefit, and I call on our regional mayors and the Ministers of the devolved Administrations to stand ready to build on the benefits that these deals will deliver. With this in mind, could my noble friend in his summary inform the House of how the Department for International Trade is supporting the nations and regions to make the most of these deals? Does he agree that it is now time for some of these officeholders to put aside their Brexit-bashing views so that their constituents may fully embrace the opportunities to come?

    Throughout the progress of the Bill, both here and in another place, the Government have been quick to address any concerns raised. I therefore find myself drawn back to the essence and scope of the Bill, which is the ratification and implementation of two highly scrutinised and beneficial free trade agreements with two of our oldest and most important allies. With the businesses and citizens of this country facing the challenges of the cost of living crisis, we need the growth and job creation that will be delivered only by agreements such as these. I conclude by welcoming the Bill, as we need to allow His Majesty’s Government to get on with the job of delivery, so that businesses and citizens all around the UK can start to feel the benefits of these historic deals and many more deals that I hope will come.

  • Natalie Bennett – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle)

    Natalie Bennett – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Deal (Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle)

    The speech made by Natalie Bennett, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    My Lords, I perhaps do not really need to declare my interest—my accent makes my Australian origins obvious. Your Lordships’ House has heard before that my academic origins are in an agricultural science degree in Australia. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, spoke with some surprise about the nature of Australian farming, with its huge, extensive properties, half the size of an English county. I have worked on those properties and can talk at some length—I will not today—about mustering the bull paddock; we trucked the horses down to the end of the bull paddock before dawn, mustered the 500 bulls in that paddock and got them into the yard at 3 pm.

    We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about Cumbrian hill farmers. I invite your Lordships’ House to think about the difference in production methods between Australia, which I have just been speaking about, where livestock are not seen by human eyes from one month to the next, and the kind of care and attention that livestock get on your average British farm. Think about that difference if you are trading between those two production models.

    I have written extensively, particularly for the Yorkshire Post, on the atrocious animal welfare and environmental standards in Australian farming. I will not repeat all of that now, but I will tell your Lordships’ House that I bore in mind when writing such articles that many people would be reading them over their morning bacon and eggs, and so toned down significantly the tales I could have told about the things I have seen in Australian agriculture.

    I note that the Minister in his introduction, which many have remarked on, spoke proudly of the animal welfare chapter in this Bill. I have a very specific question for the Minister. I am sure he is aware of the practice of mulesing, where large pieces of skin are cut off the rear of merino sheep without anaesthetic or pain relief. Those large, gaping wounds typically remain open for seven or eight weeks, and for many weeks veterinary observation reveals that those animals display, unsurprisingly, the impact of considerable pain and suffering. This is a Bill about government procurement. Will it enable the British Government to make sure that any British procurement is done in a way that ensures that no wool products which are the products of mulesing will be brought in under this Bill? If the Government wish to act on animal welfare in Australia, mulesing would be a very good place to start.

    As I am speaking some distance into your Lordships’ debate, I am going to attempt not to repeat what others have said. Somewhat to my surprise, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, about the need for democratic scrutiny in trade policy. Many other noble Lords have covered that ground. It is very obvious that we have gone greatly backwards in democratic control over trade since we left the European Union. That is simply unarguable. It is in the Government’s hands to ameliorate that situation.

    I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is not in her place, for setting out the many great environmental concerns. I associate myself with all of those, rather than repeating them.

    In his initial speech, the Minister described the Bill as the “very essence” of government strategy. In a way, this demonstrates the fact that Conservative views of trade are directly opposite, by 180 degrees, to Green ideas of what trade should be. The Bill says trade at any cost, for reasons that I will get to later, but the Green vision of trade is fair trade, rather than free trade: trade in necessary goods where this benefits all sides—both communities, both societies and both economies. In our current free trade model, huge amounts of environmental costs and costs to workers’ rights are borne by the many, while a few gain financial profit from these deals.

    There is also the problem of resilience. I note that, with remarkably little fanfare, the Government finally released their national resilience strategy on 21 December. If we are to base our Government’s economic strategy on long-distance trade, I would point your Lordships to the fact that, in just the last 24 hours, yet another vessel ran aground in the Suez Canal. This time they managed to refloat it after a couple of hours, so it was not the six-day blockage that we saw with the “Ever Given”, but this is none the less a reminder of the lack of resilience of an economy built on trade in this age of environmental, geopolitical and broadly political shocks.

    We have talked a great deal about food in this debate, but if we are thinking about a policy for food security for the UK, I put it to your Lordships’ House that Australia and New Zealand are not part of a secure food supply that will feed the people of Britain under whatever circumstances might arise in the future.

    I will raise some more specific points about the Bill. The Minister outlined the rather strange situation where we expect to see the Bill enacted for a few months and then replaced by the Procurement Bill. Like quite a number of people in your Lordships’ House today, I spent many hours grinding through that Bill in Committee and on Report. We heard then from the Government, and from all sides of your Lordships’ House, the desire to support small and medium-sized enterprises in government procurement. It is great to see that change: we did not hear this from the Government a few years ago, but we now see the idea that government procurement should look at social benefit—although the Bill still does not deliver what we desire from this. But what is the social benefit and the benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises of trade with Australia? Is it really they that will benefit, or is it the big multinational alcohol companies, for example, which one noble Lord referred to?

    I am sure that most noble Lords received the detailed report from the National Farmers’ Union on the Bill and its concerns. In his introduction, the Minister suggested that farmers welcome the Bill, but that does not reflect the overall view that we hear from many quarters of the farming community. The NFU points out that the trade deal is not balanced: the main tariff reduction is on the UK side, and UK farmers have been pushed by government policies towards types of production with high input costs, which are very different from the extensive Australian production, and they are likely to suffer. The NFU points out that the trade deal has no safeguard mechanisms if imports reach a certain level. This comes in over various periods of years: there are no safeguards for sugar after eight years and none for dairy after six.

    We again come to the question of government policy being joined up. We have a huge problem with massive over-consumption of sugar in the UK, particularly among young people. Do we really want a trade deal that potentially opens up a flood of more sugar into the UK? Where is the benefit of that?

    On dairy, I was reminded, in my reading for the debate, of some figures from a few years ago, before Brexit, that showed that British exports of ice cream to the European Union were going up, as were imports of ice cream from the EU. So we were swapping over a manufactured product and using huge amounts of energy to do so. Let us imagine that we export cheese to Australia all that distance away, and Australia exports cheese to us. What would be the point of that?

    Noble Lords

    Better cheese!

    Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)

    I hear calls from the other side of the House saying, “Better cheese”. Would the trade of different cheeses be truly worth the environmental cost? That cost is not included on the price tag, as it is the externalised cost.

    In the briefing from the TUC, concerns are expressed about workers’ rights and protecting public services. I again draw on my experiences of an Australian childhood to note that, if the UK is one of the worst places for workers’ rights in Europe, Australia is, broadly speaking, even worse and one of the worst places in the developed world. As others have referred to, there is a new Government in Australia, so that situation may change, but that is the starting point we are beginning from with this trade deal.

    Finally, I must come back to the tone of the Minister’s introductory remarks, to which many noble Lords have referred. I will offer the Government some constructive advice: if they really want to convince the House, the country and the world of the benefits of what they think they are achieving, they really need to tone down the rhetoric. The trade deal, we hear, means immense opportunities. Is that really so? As the crow flies, Australia is 15,000 kilometres away and New Zealand is 18,000 kilometres away. Port to port, the freight time is 50 days or more. They have absolutely opposite time zones. We have heard some reference to trade in services, but, as I speak now, it is 5.17 pm in the UK and 4.17 am in eastern Australia. As the UK finishes its working day, Australia and New Zealand are sleeping. That is not an ideal circumstance in which to conduct trade in services—I say that as someone who occasionally needs to make calls to Australia, because calculating the time to do so is thoroughly inconvenient. Australia has a population of 25.6 million and New Zealand a population of 5 million. How can the Government say that there will be immense opportunities? Let’s get real.

  • David Rutley – 2023 Statement on the UN Security Council Open Debate on the Rule of Law

    David Rutley – 2023 Statement on the UN Security Council Open Debate on the Rule of Law

    The statement made by David Rutley, the Minister for Americas and the Caribbean, at the UN Security Council on 12 January 2023.

    Thank you, Mr President. I am grateful to our briefers for their valuable contributions today.

    The UK has long been an advocate for the rules-based international order as the foundation of international peace, development and human advancement, and we remain deeply committed to it today.

    At the heart of this order, is the UN Charter.

    Since its inception in 1945, 193 countries have ratified that Charter, committing to work together to save future generations from the scourge of war, promote human rights, and uphold international law.

    And within that Charter, Articles 1 and 2 are of particular importance to today’s Security Council discussion. These Articles provide the foundations for global peace and security. They include an express commitment by Member States not to threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. And they oblige Member States to settle disputes by exclusively peaceful means.

    These are principles we have all made a commitment to. And for all the tragedies and bloodshed of the last 8 decades, the remarkable truth is that global commitment has made a difference, with the number of deaths in state conflicts as a share of global population falling by 95% between 1946 and 2020.

    And yet, while many countries – indeed the vast majority – have demonstrated how seriously they take their commitments under the UN Charter, a handful continue to show their disregard for the rules-based international order, and the Rule of Law.

    Mr President, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is a particularly stark example. Through its unprovoked invasion, sham referenda and illegal attempted annexations, Russia has shown contempt for its obligations under the UN Charter. Russia has clearly violated the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of non-intervention in contravention of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is made more egregious by the fact Russia is a permanent member of this Council, which brings with it a particular responsibility.

    Elsewhere too, we continue to see certain Member States act in a way which demonstrates a disregard for the rules-based international order.

    Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced than it is today. It is threatening international peace and security and undermining the global non-proliferation system.

    In North Korea, the unprecedented launch of 70 ballistic missiles in 2022 violates multiple Security Council Resolutions also continues to threaten international peace and security.

    And in Syria, the targeting of schools, hospitals and emergency first responders – by the Regime and Russia – are flagrant violations of international law and, indeed, basic human decency. Rape and sexual violence have been widely used as a weapon of war, notably by Regime pro-government forces.

    Today’s discussion is timely. Any breach of the UN Charter and its fundamental principles, which underpin global peace and security, represents a threat to us all. And so now, more than ever, the International Community must come together to reiterate our support for the UN Charter, and the Rule of Law; commit to work together to strengthen the rules-based international order and the Rule of Law, and to send a clear signal that we will not tolerate efforts to undermine the rules-based international order. The United Kingdom looks forward to working with you all to do so.

    Thank you, Mr President.