The speech made by Roger Liddle, Baron Liddle, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Swire, on a most charming maiden speech. Of course on these Benches we welcome the fact that these agreements with our Commonwealth allies in Australia and New Zealand have been concluded.
I mention right at the start one positive aspect of these agreements, which does not have much to do with trade directly but which I think is important: the mobility provisions for young people. The idea that they can spend up to three years as under-35 year-olds, and working at the same time—not just as students—seems a welcome approach to mobility and a very good thing. I hope that this kind of agreement will be matched in future in relations between the UK and the European Union.
I would also like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, to his place. I greatly admired the bravado with which he spoke in favour of his Government’s negotiation of these agreements. There is, however, one obvious and, I am afraid, difficult question that I have to ask him. If these benefits are as overwhelming as he described—if billions of pounds of opportunities are being created—why did the impact assessment that went along with the parliamentary papers on these agreements suggest that the Australian agreement would increase our GDP by 0.08% and the New Zealand agreement by 0.03%?
I do not understand this obvious contradiction; I wonder whether the Minister will explain it to us in his reply. Is it because the benefits of these agreements are, in the Australian case, overwhelmingly on the Australian side? I read a lot of gossip about what is going on in the Conservative Party; it is said by some people that the reason why these agreements were concluded so quickly, and at such obvious disadvantage to UK interests overall, was because Liz Truss wanted to be able to claim to Conservative members that she was successfully getting trade agreements in order to be a champion of Brexit. I do not know about that but, if it is what lies behind this contradiction, it is an absolute disgrace.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is no longer in his place, possibly has an explanation for the low economic benefits: that, because of agricultural interests in this country, we have put a brake on the potential for achieving the benefits of agricultural liberalisation. We need a national debate about this; it is a very important issue. I come from Cumberland and I know that its hill farmers earn very little: £10,000 to £15,000 per year. They are among the most hard-working, low-paid workers in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Frost—I wish he were still here—talked of how they would have to adjust. In what ways would they have to adjust and what would be the social and environmental costs, as well as the costs to the traditions that they have pursued for generations? We would like to hear answers from the Government on that question.
I support very strongly what my noble friend Lady Liddell said in her excellent opening contribution about how we are weaker as a result of not having subjected these agreements to proper parliamentary scrutiny. If we want a proper debate about how much we are prepared to liberalise, the Government will have to be much more open with the public about the trade-offs in this situation. Yet, particularly with the Australia agreement, what we saw instead was an attempt to hide from Parliament what it was all about.
When we had the discussions on the Trade Bill post Brexit, we were made promises. I remember David Davis coming along to our Select Committee and saying, “Of course, the UK Parliament will have the same rights as the European Parliament to scrutiny”. What a joke. I worked in Brussels in the Trade Commissioner’s cabinet when Peter Mandelson was Commissioner. One of my jobs was to maintain close relations with the trade committee of the European Parliament. These were very expert people who understood the issues properly, they had to approve a mandate for every negotiation, they had to be kept informed at every stage of negotiation, and the European Parliament as a whole had a vote on whether what had been agreed should go ahead. We have none of those provisions. Is it not absurd that trade agreements should be ratified on the basis of a resolution procedure, rather than something that offers the possibility of serious debate, in which amendments might be moved and different positions taken? If the Government are serious about trade and the difficult choices in trade, they have to be much more forward in their willingness to open these matters to scrutiny.
Finally, I very much agree with the remarks from noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the absence of a credible trade strategy. We now know that we have lost considerably as a result of leaving the single market: something like a 14% trade loss—we know that is a fact. The Government cannot argue with that; the statistics are all there and obvious. How will we make up for that loss? We know the United States is not interested in an agreement. We know that with China, if anything, our economic relations are becoming more distant, not closer, and that is likely to be a trend. Indeed, one of the reasons farmers worry about the implications of these agreements is that if New Zealand was no longer able to export its lamb to China—Australia has already had difficulties—then it would find its way to the United Kingdom, flood the market and cause immense difficulties for our own farmers. Where are we on that question?
Where are we on India? Is there really any serious prospect of an India trade deal? If the Government regard as one of their top priorities stopping small boats, they are never going to agree to the thousands of visas that the Indians will want in return for trade concessions for us. That is, basically, the basis of the deal. If immigration matters to the extent that the Government make it their top priority, I am afraid we will never have a trade deal with India.
I do not know what the strategy is, and I think it is high time that the Government produced one. I hope the Minister, whom I greatly welcome to his place, will provide us with some answers in his summing up.