UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Alison Thewliss – 2023 Speech on Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    Alison Thewliss – 2023 Speech on Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    The speech made by Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

    Whitehall sources have been quoted in The Guardian as saying:

    “The Williams review is not set in stone”.

    It would be a betrayal of that review and of those affected if there is to be no migrants commissioner, no reconciliation events and no extra powers for the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. The Windrush compensation scheme has been painfully slow, with at least 23 people known to have died while their claims were being processed. So will the Minister confirm that none of the planned changes will affect the already ineffective compensation scheme and that the claims still outstanding will be concluded at the earliest opportunity? What confidence can those who do us the honour of coming to these islands for sanctuary, for work, for study and for love have in this Government when the UK Tory Government ignore the terrible injustices of Windrush, fail to learn the lessons and double down on attacking their fellow human beings?

    Miss Dines

    The hon. Lady should not believe everything she reads in the paper because there is no end date to Wendy Williams’ appointment, she continues to review and the Government take her views very seriously. I do not accept the premise of the “delay”. These issues are dealt with sensitively. It is important not to have a knee-jerk reaction and rush. Detailed, fundamental work needs to be done and Members must judge the “delay”—or the progress, as I would rather say—by the fact that there is a 59% success rate and so much money paid out. What is important is that the engagement, which has improved over the past three to six months, has meant a dramatic increase in the number of those taking up the scheme. There is always more to do and the Government will not say that they are doing everything right, but they are 100% committed and I do not accept that there is delay or a willingness to ditch, as is implied, the independent reviewer, whose work is so important.

  • Grant Shapps – 2023 Speech to the Atlantic Council at its Global Energy Forum

    Grant Shapps – 2023 Speech to the Atlantic Council at its Global Energy Forum

    The speech made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in Abu Dhabi on 14 January 2023.

    The UAE seems to be playing some part in my fate.

    Last year, I found myself just 100 kilometres away from here.

    But, far from the beaches and the skyscrapers of Abu Dhabi and Dubai, it felt like a different world.

    There, in the middle of the desert, I saw a sparkling sea of a different kind.

    The deep blue shine of millions of photovoltaic panels in the sun, generating hundreds of megawatts of renewable electricity.

    Panels which will eventually become part of one of the largest solar plants in the world.

    I had little idea then that fate would return me here only a year later as the Minister responsible for energy.

    Today, some things remain the same; the UAE is still right at the cutting edge in generating low-cost solar power on a frankly stunning scale. Right here in Abu Dhabi, they’re breaking fresh records in solar technology at Al Dhafra and Shams.

    But much has changed, and not just for me.

    In many ways, we find ourselves in a different world.

    The last time this forum convened, Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine was just beginning.

    Now, we face a winter which, for many in Europe, is overshadowed by concern about falling energy supplies and rising prices…

    …a winter when households have had to think twice before turning up the thermostat…

    …when factories have been forced to pause production…

    …when inflation has rocketed…

    and growth has slowed.

    It is also a winter that comes at the end of a year that saw flooding in Pakistan…

    …heatwaves in the UK…

    …and bomb cyclones in the US.

    A year when we began to feel the likely impacts of climate change in earnest.

    There is much about the last twelve months that I could not have foreseen back then.

    And looking forward to 2023, the future is far from clear; I certainly wouldn’t want to make too many predictions.

    But – putting matters of predestination aside – there’s one thing we can be sure of: energy matters now more than ever.

    So where do we go from here?

    Perhaps we are best off starting with the ways that world has changed for the better in 2022.

    Off our Eastern coast, we completed Hornsea Two – the world’s largest offshore wind farm.

    There, you will find over a hundred turbines.

    At their very highest point, they are a dizzying 200m above the stormy seas below.

    For those of you who have visited the Zayed Sports City Stadium, that’s almost the height of two football pitches stacked on top of each other.

    Just a single rotation of one of these turbines generates enough electricity to power a home for 24 hours.

    But Hornsea Two is far from our first success – because we’re home to the world’s second, third, and fourth largest wind farms, too.

    Today, all of them are capturing the high winds of the North Sea, in a year when we beat our record for wind power generation three times.

    And across the Atlantic in California, we’ve witnessed another extraordinary achievement.

    Just a month ago, scientists at the Laurence Livermore National Laboratory announced one of the most significant energy breakthroughs in living memory.

    Aiming 192 high-powered lasers at a tiny spherical capsule just 2mm wide, they were able to harness the same reactions that power the sun and stars to demonstrate fusion ignition, proving what until now had only existed in theory and paving the way towards what could be one day a near-limitless source of energy for the future. And back in the UK, we’re taking leaps of our own.

    We’re not just developing our very own fusion power plant, a ‘spherical tokamak’ on the site of an old coal power station in the Midlands. We are also operating the Joint Energy Torus, the most powerful fusion facility in the world and taking the lead in regulating and commercialising fusion technology, working out the best way to get it out of the lab and into the real market place, and into the world.

    These are stories of entrepreneurs and innovators, working together to deliver clean, secure energy for millions, and jobs for thousands more.

    Stories that tell us that the fates of energy security, net zero, and the economic growth are inseparably intertwined.

    Dependable supplies of fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, have a crucial role to play in easing the energy transition, which we just heard about in the discussion on stage.

    But it is only by harnessing the power of transformative green technologies that we can build a global energy system that is fit for the future.

    Whether that’s in the UK, where we’re developing small modular reactors which promise to make nuclear easier, faster, and cheaper… and we have been running them in the sea for the last six days.

    …or here in Abu Dhabi, where operations have begun at the Barakah nuclear power plant, the first nuclear power plant not just in the UAE but in the whole Arab world, expected to deliver up to a quarter of the nation’s electricity needs when fully up and running…

    …and where, last week, ADNOC announced $15bn to accelerate its decarbonisation strategy, investing in everything from energy efficiency and electrification to carbon capture.

    Now yesterday, I signed a Clean Energy Memorandum between the UK and the UAE to promote energy security and investment between our two nations.

    Agreements like this matter. Because when it comes to climate change, the whole world has a stake. And none of us should have to settle for less.

    So working together really matters…

    …to deliver a low-carbon future that isn’t just more secure and more prosperous…

    …but a future that is fairer is a future I think that is worth fighting for.

    Our International Climate Finance has already provided an astonishing 58 million people with improved access to clean energy since 2011.

    But we are delivering on our pledge to double it up to at least £11.6bn from 2021, reaching tens of millions more.

    Because the Green Industrial Revolution must not leave anyone behind.

    After all, you can’t just shut down your power stations and be done with it, leaving millions without energy or employment.

    That’s where Just Energy Transition Partnerships come in. They are mobilising billions to support the transition from coal power to clean growth in key economies like South Africa and Indonesia.

    And, by investing in new green energy supplies, electric vehicles, and hydrogen, they are providing security and opportunity for communities across these countries.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I have to say it is fitting that we are here in the UAE, 2023’s COP28 President elect Sultan Al Jaber and his great leadership and speech this morning. Because it is here that we are seeing and building on the extraordinary progress that has been made since Glasgow, built on in Egypt, but this year we will have to see those real developments, in this stocktake COP taking place in November and December.

    We face challenges the likes of which no generation has ever faced before.

    Let me just take you briefly back to that solar sea in the desert that I talked about visiting last year.

    Today, they’re building the tallest solar tower in the entire world.

    Concentrating the heat reflected by tens of thousands of moving mirrors onto a single point, it will be a shining a beacon hundreds of meters above the ground – and a lighthouse above the blue beneath.

    Innovations like these -creating powers in new ways –  must  be an inspiration for us all, guiding us towards a better energy technology of tomorrow.

    But none of this can be done alone. None of it can be done alone.

    I have talked today about fate, not just my fate but also your fate – or our joint fates.

    And I said before that we could only be certain of one thing: energy matters more today than it ever has done in the history of humanity.

    In the face of great challenges, we have no oracles to turn to…

    …nor do I have any Delphic maxims to offer.

    But, without climbing the steps of Mount Parnassus, or any other high mountain, I think there is one thing that we can be absolutely sure of…we will succeed as humanity in doing this.

    One thing I can’t be certain of is my fate, other than to say, I know the UAE will continue to be a big part of it and I can predict with absolute confidence that I will be back here in December. I look forward to seeing you all at COP28. Thank you very much.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Statement on the Execution of Alireza Akbari

    James Cleverly – 2023 Statement on the Execution of Alireza Akbari

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 14 January 2023.

    The execution of British-Iranian Alireza Akbari is a barbaric act that deserves condemnation in the strongest possible terms. Through this politically motivated act, the Iranian regime has once again shown its callous disregard for human life.

    This will not stand unchallenged and we will be summoning the Iranian Charge d’Affaires to make clear our disgust at Iran’s actions. Our thoughts are with Mr Akbari’s family.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Statement Warning Iran Not to Execute Alireza Akbari

    James Cleverly – 2023 Statement Warning Iran Not to Execute Alireza Akbari

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 13 January 2023.

    The Iranian regime should be in no doubt. We are watching the case of Alireza Akbari closely.   Iran must not follow through with their brutal threat of execution.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2023 Speech on Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    Stephen Kinnock – 2023 Speech on Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    The reality is that this Government’s treatment of the Windrush generation is surely one of the most shameful episodes in our post-war political history. The Windrush community played a pivotal role in rebuilding Britain. We all owe them a debt of honour and gratitude but, instead, consecutive Conservative Governments have treated them with utter contempt. First, they were victimised under the hostile environment policy, and then they were let down by a poorly administered compensation scheme, under which just 1,300 people have been awarded compensation when the Government originally estimated that 15,000 should be eligible. Now it is reported that the Government are set to betray the Windrush generation once again by U-turning on their commitment to implementing all 30 recommendations in Wendy Williams’s lessons learned report.

    In September 2021, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), restated her aim to put right the wrongs of this sorry affair, yet today we find the Government are rowing back on some of their commitments, including by refusing to hand additional powers to the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and by scrapping reconciliation and community events.

    Why are the Government so terrified of scrutiny? Their toxic combination of incompetence and indifference is failing the Windrush generation, just as it is failing the country as a whole. Given that Wendy Williams says that only eight of her recommendations have been implemented, will the Minister tell me today how many of the Williams recommendations have been implemented and how many the Government are ditching, as is widely reported by the media?

    Why have thousands of the Windrush generation still not received any compensation at all? On the 75th anniversary of the Windrush landing, are the Windrush generation being betrayed by this Government once again?

    Sarah Dines

    This Government are absolutely not betraying the Windrush generation. Successive Governments of all colours have failed to step up to the mark, but this Government are stepping up. The Windrush generation are rightly identified as British and have the right to be in this country, and this remains separate from the many narratives that have been written.

    The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government do not comment on leaks. What I can say is that we have matched the scale of Wendy’s challenge with the scale of our ambition and delivery. Wendy acknowledges that our ambition to achieve genuine cultural change requires ongoing reflection, which is what we are doing. The Home Office has provided regular updates on the good progress, and the statistics bear out the hard work that is happening.

    I am afraid that the narrative is simply not quite right. I remind the House that 4,558 claims have been received, and the total compensation offered is £59.58 million, of which more than £51 million has already been paid. Fifty-nine per cent. of claims have a final decision and, as a lawyer in my previous profession, I know that that is quite a high number. The Government are absolutely committed to righting this injustice.

  • Sarah Dines – 2023 Statement on Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    Sarah Dines – 2023 Statement on Windrush Lessons Learned Review

    The statement made by Sarah Dines, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    Since the injustices of Windrush came to light, there has been a concerted effort across the Home Office to right the wrongs suffered by those affected. That work continues, and the Department is making sustained progress on delivering on the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review of 2020 and the commitments made in the comprehensive improvement plan of 2020. In her report last year, the independent reviewer Wendy Williams concluded that 21 of her recommendations had been met or partially met. She acknowledged that the scale of the challenge she had set the Department was significant and that change on that scale takes time.

    We have made progress in delivering against Wendy Williams’s recommendations. In October 2022, the Home Office established the Office for the Independent Examiner of Complaints, and Moiram Ali was appointed as the independent examiner following a public appointment recruitment process. The Home Office has also held over 200 engagement and outreach events across the country, and the Windrush help teams have attended over 120 one-to-one surgeries to help people apply for documentation.

    As of the end of October 2022, the Home Office has paid out or offered £59.58 million of compensation to Windrush victims. The “Serving Diverse Communities: Acting on Our Values” learning package was launched across the Home Office in June 2022, starting with recommendation 24 on learning for senior civil servants and recommendation 29 on diversity and inclusion. The learning package for recommendation 6 on the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world has been designed and is undergoing final review prior to implementation.

    I am pleased that the independent reviewer of Windrush progress has concluded that there are several areas in which very good progress has been made, but she rightly holds the Home Office to account for areas and recommendations where sufficient progress has not yet been made. She concludes that there can be “no doubt” that the Department has risen to the “daunting challenge” she set us.

    We know there is more to do. Many people suffered terrible injustices at the hands of successive Governments, and the Department will continue working hard to right the wrongs and to deliver a Home Office worthy of every community it serves.

  • Elliot Colburn – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Domestic Burglaries

    Elliot Colburn – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Domestic Burglaries

    The parliamentary question asked by Elliot Colburn, the Conservative MP for Carshalton and Wallington, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2023.

    Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)

    Carshalton and Wallington residents are deeply concerned about burglaries. I welcome the Metropolitan police’s commitment to attend all burglaries, but will my right hon. Friend outline what his Department is doing to ensure that those who are arrested receive appropriate sentences?

    Dominic Raab

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can tell him that domestic burglary has actually fallen by half since 2010, and the Metropolitan police’s operational tenacity is one element of that. On sentencing, the maximum sentence is 14 years. That is obviously an individual decision for judges, but I can also tell him that since 2010 the average sentence has increased by nine months, from 22.6 months to 31.6 months. There has been a step change and an increase in sentences for burglary, as well as the measures we are taking on police and law enforcement.

  • Government Explainer to the UK/Australia Trade Deal

    Government Explainer to the UK/Australia Trade Deal

    The explainer issued by HM Government on the UK/Australia trade deal on 9 December 2022.

    Trade Bill overview

    The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill enables the ratification and implementation of the UK’s free trade agreements (FTAs) with Australia and New Zealand.

    These agreements deliver an important benefit of leaving the European Union (EU) – the UK’s ability to conduct its own independent trade policy. They support economic growth and will benefit all the nations and regions of the UK.

    Specifically, the Bill will give the government the powers it needs to:

    • extend duties and remedies to suppliers from Australia and New Zealand in domestic law for procurement covered by the FTA
    • amend the domestic procurement regulations to bring them in line with commitments in the Australia agreement
    • make changes to stay compliant over the lifetime of the agreement, for example updating the names of government entities if these change in future

    Once the FTAs take effect, businesses and citizens all around the UK can start to feel the benefits, including:

    • a projected £2.3 billion boost to the UK economy from the Australia FTA and £800 million from the New Zealand FTA
    • the elimination of all tariffs on UK goods exports to Australia and New Zealand, from cars, chocolate, Scotch whisky and fashion to buses, excavators and ships
    • flexible rules of origin which mean UK businesses can use some imported parts and ingredients and still qualify for the new 0% tariffs when exporting to both countries
    • removal of UK import tariffs on goods from Australia and New Zealand including favourites such as wine, swimwear, surfboards, boots, manuka honey and kiwi fruits – paving the way for UK consumers to get more choice, quality products and lower prices
    • cheaper access to ingredients, materials and components from Australian and New Zealand for UK manufacturers – such as hydraulic power engines and pressure reducing valves from Australia and make-up and biscuit ingredients from New Zealand
    • unprecedented access to the Australian market for UK services, going further than Australia has in any other such deal, meaning businesses from architecture and law to financial services and shipping will be able to compete in both places on an equal footing
    • advanced digital provisions which allow UK tech and services firms, creative industries and many other sectors to break into new markets in Australia and New Zealand, including securing the free flow of data
    • making business easier through the use of electronic contracts and signatures
    • dedicated chapters to support small businesses and help them access opportunities in Australia and New Zealand
    • guaranteed rights for UK investors to invest across the Australian economy and a reduced need for them to pass investment review checks in both Australia and New Zealand
    • access for British companies to bid for Australian government contracts worth around £10 billion per year on an equal footing with Australian firms, including major infrastructure projects, financial and business services
    • new rules making it easier for Brits to live, travel and work in Australia and New Zealand.

    Read more about the benefits of the UK-Australia FTA and the benefits of the UK-New Zealand FTA.

    While the focus of the Bill is narrow, there are still many common misconceptions around the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand FTAs, which are addressed below.

    Agriculture

    Myth: Providing generous market access to Australia and New Zealand will undercut the UK’s farming industry. The UK market will be flooded with foreign imports.

    Reality: Increased imports from Australia are more likely to displace imports from the EU – the source of 230,000 tonnes of UK beef imports in 2020 – than to hurt UK farmers.

    With respect to sheep meat and beef in particular, it is unlikely that large volumes will be diverted to the UK from lucrative markets in Asia, which are geographically closer to Australia. More than 75% of Australian beef and 70% of Australian sheep meat exports in 2020 went to markets in Asia and the Pacific.

    For the first 15 years of the New Zealand FTA there will be no new sheep meat access to the UK for New Zealand unless its WTO sheep meat quota into the UK reaches 90% utilisation. We do not believe this is likely to happen.

    Furthermore, we import far more beef from the EU than from New Zealand, all at 0% tariff and with no quotas.

    In addition, the government is committed to encouraging people to support British produce. 81% of retail beef sales in the UK are under the British logo (according to the National Beef Association) and several major high street retailers have committed to only using 100% British beef, notably Aldi, Morrisons, Marks and Spencer and Waitrose.

    Myth: UK farmers will not be protected by these free trade agreements.

    Reality: Both agreements include safeguards for the most sensitive parts of the UK farming community.

    The UK-Australia deal includes:

    1. Tariff-rate quotas – these last up to 10 years, depending on the product, and automatically apply higher tariffs to imports above a certain volume threshold (known as the quota). Additionally, on sheep meat, if volume thresholds under tariff-rate quotas are consistently filled in years one to 10, the UK can periodically reduce the volume thresholds of the quotas or safeguards by 25%.
    2. Product-specific safeguards – these have a similar effect from year 11 to year 15 of the agreement, imposing high tariffs – of 20% for beef and sheep meat – above a volume threshold. If the product-specific safeguards for sheep meat are triggered in this period, the UK can periodically reduce the volume thresholds of the quotas or safeguards by 25%.
    3. General bilateral safeguard mechanism – this applies to all products and will provide a temporary safety net for UK producers threatened with serious injury from increased imports as a result of tariff liberalisation under the FTA.  This protection will last for a product’s tariff liberalisation period plus 5 years in order to allow domestic industries time to adjust.

    The UK-New Zealand deal includes:

    1. Tariff liberalisation for sensitive goods staged over time to allow time for adjustment.
    2. Tariff-rate quotas and product-specific safeguards for a range of the most sensitive agricultural products, including beef, sheep meat, cheese, butter and apples. These measures will limit the volume of duty-free imports permitted and, in the case of beef and sheep meat, will be in place for 15 years.
    3. A general bilateral safeguard mechanism for all products, providing a temporary safety net for producers threatened with serious injury from increased imports as a result of tariff liberalisation under the FTA. For beef, the transition period is 15 years. For sheep meat, the transition period is 20 years. This will allow the farming sector significant time to adjust.

    Even after these protections expire, the UK will still be able to apply global safeguards under the WTO, as we have with steel.

    Myth: These FTA deals will not help British farmers export their goods.

    Reality: Australia is one of the most important destinations for UK food and drink exports and this trade deal will bring opportunities to boost exports from every part of the UK, in a sector which contributes £120 billion to our economy.

    UK food and drink exports to Australia have more than doubled in the last decade. They will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on all products, including biscuits, whisky and gin (previously 5%) and cheese (previously up to around 20%).

    The deals will also immediately remove all tariffs on UK exports to New Zealand, including food and drink such as gin (up to 5%), chocolate (5%), pork (5%) and wine (5%). UK exporters will be able to do business at lower costs and gain an advantage over international rivals in the New Zealand import market, a market which is expected to grow by around 30% by 2030.

    The agreements also prioritise helping more small businesses sell their goods to Australia and New Zealand for the first time. This could help resolve the barriers frequently cited by food and drink exporters, such as complex labelling and sanitary and phytosanitary requirements.

    Animal welfare and food safety

    Myth: Australia and New Zealand’s lower food safety and animal welfare standards will mean lower-quality produce ends up on UK shelves.

    Reality: All food and drink products imported into the UK will continue to have to comply with our rigorous import requirements as well as UK food regulations.

    For example, hormone-treated beef is banned in the UK and will not be allowed to enter the UK market. The Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland will continue to protect our food standards.

    Imports of animal products are also covered by the Sanitary Agreement and the UK’s imports regime.

    Both FTAs contain stand-alone animal welfare chapters and non-regression clauses. These mean the partner countries pledge not to lower their animal welfare standards to undercut each other.

    The independent Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) report on Australia concluded that unsafe Australian products were unlikely to be imported in most cases and that there were safeguards in the deal to maintain animal welfare and environmental standards.

    The TAC examined concerns about mistreatment of animals, mistreatment of the environment and dangerous practices with pesticides, with chairman Prof Lorand Bartels saying they were “just not well-founded, or they were a bit exaggerated or misunderstood”.

    The TAC’s report on New Zealand concluded that the UK-New Zealand FTA would not require the UK to change existing levels of statutory protections. In the case of environmental matters, the FTA goes beyond existing WTO obligations. The TAC added that New Zealand would not be able gain a trade advantage by lowering its standards of protection.

    The TAC examined concerns relating to antibiotic usage, pesticide usage and climate change and the report concluded that in all cases, including New Zealand’s use of pesticides banned in the UK, it was not a cause for concern. On pesticides, the report concluded the FTA did not reduce the UK’s existing rights under WTO law to regulate imports. It also gave the UK “enhanced rights under the FTA to ensure that New Zealand does not fail to ‘endeavour’ to maintain high levels of environmental protection”. The TAC also said it did not consider it likely that New Zealand’s existing pesticide rules would put it in breach of this obligation.

    Myth: Australia and New Zealand do not care about animal welfare.

    Reality: Maintaining our high standards is a red line in all our trade negotiations. Australian animal welfare standards are higher than many other countries around the world and are in some cases higher than those in the EU.

    RSPCA Australia worked closely with the Australian government to develop improved animal welfare guidelines and standards in 2016. The new standards are in the process of being enshrined in state and territorial law.

    Australian RSPCA-approved farms have animal welfare standards closer to the UK’s than current Australian legislation, including bans on tethering, hot-iron branding, sow stalls and veal crates and provide similar enrichments for meat and layer chickens.

    New Zealand is a global leader in animal welfare and shares the UK’s commitment to further improving and advancing our already high animal welfare standards. Both governments have a longstanding recognition of the sentience of animals. The Animal Protection Index ranks both New Zealand and the UK highly compared with others around the world across a range of animal welfare indicators.

    The UK and New Zealand already have a Veterinary Equivalency Agreement, meaning we trust and recognise many of their animal health standards as equivalent to the UK.

    Environment and climate change

    Myth: These trade deals do not contain environmental safeguards.

    Reality: The Australia FTA:

    • provides a vehicle for working with Australia to strengthen its policy response to the climate crisis
    • commits the UK and Australia to work collaboratively on climate change and reaffirms their commitments to upholding all their obligations under the Paris Agreement
    • ensures neither Australia nor the UK can deviate from their environmental laws to gain an unfair advantage in trade and investment

    Under the FTA, the UK and Australia will work together to:

    • combat illegal logging
    • control trade in products which contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer
    • prevent pollution from shipping and cooperate on addressing marine litter, including plastics and microplastics
    • promote conservation (including of sharks, turtles, seabirds)
    • tackle subsidies that contribute to overfishing, and enforcement to deter illegal fishing
    • conserve biodiversity and to tackle illegal trade in wild flora and fauna

    The New Zealand FTA:

    • sets new benchmarks on a range of issues, going beyond the precedent in several areas and supporting both UK and New Zealand efforts in important areas, from transitioning away from fossil fuels to deforestation and sustainable fisheries
    • contains the most comprehensive environmental goods list with liberalised tariffs in any FTA to date, with tariffs removed on products such as electric vehicles and wind turbine parts
    • includes ambitious commitments to end electricity generation from unabated coal, take steps to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies where they exist, and pursue an ambitious phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons
    • includes commitments to tackle environmental challenges such as illegal wildlife trade (including in ivory), air pollution, marine pollution and litter, and promote biodiversity, sustainable agriculture, and the transition to a circular economy
    • affirms our commitments to implement multilateral environmental agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement and preserves the UK’s right to regulate including for net zero

    Myth: By signing this trade deal with Australia, the UK is encouraging poor agricultural practices, especially in relation to forests.

    Reality: Both the UK and Australia have committed to combating illegal logging and related trade, an issue of critical importance to the preservation of our natural environment and biodiversity.

    The environment chapter with Australia recognises the importance of sustainable forest management and strengthens bilateral cooperation and information-sharing.  We have also agreed provisions on promoting and cooperating on the transition towards a circular economy and reducing waste. These go beyond the terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, alongside cooperation on further areas including air quality and marine litter.

    Australia has also recently signed up to the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use at COP26 which includes a pledge to end deforestation by 2030.

    Australia has been reforesting rather than deforesting. The UK would be able to raise the issue of deforestation with Australia in the FTA’s Environment Working Group.

    Impacts of the deals

    Myth: Australia and New Zealand benefit more from these deals than the UK does.

    Reality: Australia and New Zealand are priority markets and valuable strategic partners in strengthening and increasing a UK network of trade agreements. By removing barriers, we generate more trade with Australia and New Zealand than if we had no agreement.

    These new partnerships with Australia and New Zealand are expected to increase bilateral trade by 53% and 59% respectively in the long run. They are expected to boost the UK economy by £2.3 billion and £800 million when compared to projected levels of GDP in 2035. The UK-Australia deal goes further than Australia has ever gone before in giving access to services companies. This means UK services from architecture and legal to financial services and shipping will be able to compete in the Australian market on a guaranteed equal footing.

    This could increase exports of UK services to Australia, which were worth £5 billion in 2020. UK investors will also benefit from more access than ever before to opportunities in Australia, with guaranteed rights to invest across the Australian economy. The majority of UK investments will no longer need to be reviewed by the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board – saving time, saving money and cutting red tape for UK investors.

    The UK-Australia deal is mutually beneficial in the long run, boosting both economies by £2.3 billion each when compared to projected levels of GDP in 2035.

    The UK-New Zealand trade relationship was worth £2.5 billion in 2021; the agreement is expected to significantly increase this by the equivalent of around £1.7 billion in the long run.

    Myth: These FTAs do not boost UK exports, only Australian and New Zealand exports into the UK.

    Reality: UK exports to New Zealand are estimated to increase by £0.7 billion, and UK imports from New Zealand are estimated to increase by £1 billion when compared to projected levels of trade in 2035.

    In terms of estimated growth in gross value added (GVA) in absolute terms, the largest contributions come from expansions in the manufacture of machinery (0.11% or £46 million) and motor vehicles (0.24% or £43 million).

    Services sectors are estimated to make the strongest contribution to the estimated growth in GVA as a result of the agreements, especially in terms of:

    • wholesale and retail services (0.04% or £105 million)
    • public services (0.03% or £82 million)
    • other services – transport, water, dwellings (0.03% or £82 million)

    UK exports to Australia are estimated to increase by £6.2 billion, when compared to projected levels in 2035 in the absence of the FTA.

    The agreement includes immediate tariff-free access on £2.3 billion worth of UK exports. 98% of estimated tariff reductions will come into immediate effect, on UK exports such as cars, Scotch whisky and ceramics. Once staging is complete, in year 6 of the agreement, 100% of UK exports will be eligible for tariff-free access.

    Duties of up to 5% will be eliminated on UK exports to Australia such as cars, whisky, some pharmaceutical products, motors, clothing and even Christmas decorations. Tariffs of up to around 20% on UK agri-food products such as cheese will also be eliminated.

    Based on historic trade flows, the total annual tariff reductions on UK exports to Australia are estimated to be £115 million at entry into force and £116 million in year 6. This is without considering potential increases in UK exports to Australia resulting from this agreement.

    Myth: We should be focussing on deals with bigger trading partners, such as the US or the Indo-Pacific region, as they will bring the biggest trade benefits.

    Reality: Both Australia and New Zealand are important partners in the Asia-Pacific region. These deals with both Australia and New Zealand complement the UK’s accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Australia and New Zealand are both leading members and have supported the UK’s bid for membership.

    These agreements will give the UK access to new supply chains and enable UK businesses to use Australia and New Zealand as a launchpad into Asia.

    These trade agreements are an important part in realising the government’s ambition to putting the UK at the centre of a network of modern deals spanning the Americas and Indo-Pacific.

    Myth: There has been no consideration of the impact these deals will have on UK nations and regions.

    Reality: These FTAs will deliver benefits to people, businesses and communities throughout the country and support economic growth.

    Playing to the strengths of all UK nations and regions, they:

    • benefit Scotland’s financial services industry
    • allow easier market access for engineering services firms in the West Midlands
    • provide new opportunities for Welsh fintech companies in Cardiff and Newport
    • help carmakers support thousands of jobs in the North East of England
    • cut tariffs for Northern Ireland’s textiles exporters

    The following table shows the projected GDP benefits for each part of the UK for each FTA:

    Nation or region Benefit from Australia FTA Benefit from New Zealand FTA
    East Midlands £90 million £20 million
    East of England £140 million £35 million
    London £400 million £130 million
    North East £65 million £15 million
    North West £189 million £55 million
    Northern Ireland £20 million £5 million
    Scotland £120 million £35 million
    South East £295 million £85 million
    South West £130 million £35 million
    Wales £60 million £15 million
    West Midlands £195 million £50 million
    Yorkshire and the Humber £100 million £25 million

    Parliamentary scrutiny

    Myth: The UK government has not fulfilled its obligations on scrutiny for these FTAs.

    Reality: Since the passage of the Japan FTA in Autumn 2020 the government has put in place more opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise free trade agreements.

    In the case of the Australia FTA, the government has exceeded its statutory obligations, passing the agreement text to Parliament almost 6 months before the start of the official Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRaG) scrutiny period in June 2022. The TAC report was passed to the IAC and ITC on 8 April – a week after it was received and in advance of its publication on 13 April 2022.

    In addition:

    • the full economic case and objectives were published at the start of the negotiations
    • full updates were provided at the end of every negotiating round
    • the full text of the treaties, including economic impact and explanatory documents were published as soon as possible after the agreements were signed
    • the Trade and Agriculture Commission and Food Standards Agency have independently reviewed the trade deals and reported on the impacts
    • the International Trade Select Committee has also undertaken a review of the trade deals

    We continue to review arrangements, ensuring they remain fit for purpose.

    Myth: The UK government has not accommodated requests from Parliament to scrutinise trade deals.

    Reality: CRaG provides an effective and robust framework for scrutiny of treaties that require ratification, including free trade agreements. While formally legislated for in 2010 under the previous Labour government, its origins date back almost 100 years.

    Under CRaG, the government must lay relevant treaties before Parliament for 21 sitting days before it can ratify them. Parliament has the power to prevent ratification and the House of Commons can do so indefinitely.

    In line with this government’s commitment to transparency, we have gone well beyond the statutory requirements of CRaG and provided comprehensive information to Parliament to support its scrutiny of our trade policy approach.

    In addition, no trade agreement can, of itself, alter our domestic legislation. Any changes to UK legislation that are required for our trade agreements will therefore need to be scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way.

    The Lords Constitution Committee recommended in its 2019 report on scrutiny of treaties that:

    • existing parliamentary mechanisms, supported by the work of the designated treaties committee, should be sufficient to provide effective scrutiny
    • mandates for treaties should not be subject to parliamentary approval
    • the UK Parliament should be able to conduct scrutiny of our agreements in a way that is appropriate and bespoke to the UK constitutional context

    Devolved administrations

    Myth: The devolved administrations (DAs) have had no say in the negotiations of these trade agreements.

    Reality: While treaty-making powers are reserved and only the UK government can negotiate and ratify trade agreements, the DAs have been engaged regularly and extensively throughout trade negotiations.

    For example, in relation to the negotiations with Australia:

    • the Chief Negotiator/Deputy Chief Negotiator held discussions with their DA counterparts approximately 25 times over the course of negotiations
    • written information was shared with the DAs in devolved areas of competence
    • there were rolling policy discussions at official level – every chapter team held discussions with their DA counterparts at least every 6 weeks
    • ministers discussed the UK-Australia negotiations at the Ministerial Forum for Trade with regular updates and substantive discussion taking place in March and July 2021
  • Dominic Johnson – 2023 Closing Statement on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baron Johnson of Lainston)

    Dominic Johnson – 2023 Closing Statement on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baron Johnson of Lainston)

    The closing statement made by Dominic Johnson, Baron Johnson of Lainston, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    I thank noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate and for the contributions from all sides of the House: it has been absolutely fascinating. I am extremely grateful also that the Australian and New Zealand high commissioners made themselves available to watch part of the debate: I am grateful to them for their support, morally, in the Galleries. I also extend warm gratitude to the IAC and say how much I appreciate its involvement both before this debate and, I very much hope, in the next few weeks, as we go through Committee and Report.

    I join the long line of people congratulating my noble friend Lord Swire on his first-class maiden speech. He was certainly a better speaker and politician than he was a soldier, by the sounds of things, and I am very glad to have him behind me, as a result. Both he and the noble Lords, Lord Marland and Lord Howell, raised the Commonwealth. I totally agree with the importance we place on our links with the Commonwealth and the opportunities that our post-Brexit vision brings us in relation to the Commonwealth. I reassure my noble friends that the Government will and are making the most of the Commonwealth within our trade agenda. We have done 33 trade deals with Commonwealth members and we have a newly launched developing countries trading scheme, which I know my noble friend Lord Swire has discussed with me in the past. Total trade in goods and services between the UK and the Commonwealth was £121 billion in 2021, which I am delighted to report is an increase of 12% on 2020.

    I will answer some of the questions that have been raised and I will try to do so in as much detail as possible given the time available to me. I think this is a very important debate.

    The first point I would like to turn to is the question of why we are presenting this Bill to you today given that, in theory, there is a Procurement Bill that is being debated in the other place that will cancel this Bill. Well, actually, that is not completely true. All the provisions relating to Scotland are not in the Procurement Bill, so if we are to have consistency then we need to have this Bill relating to Scotland to follow through on top of the Procurement Bill, even when the Procurement Bill cancels this Bill—if that does not sound too bizarre.

    There is also an important point on timing. The Procurement Bill, rather than this procurement Bill called the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, will take many months to get on to our statute books. Following that, there will be a further six-month waiting period before the provisions in the Procurement Bill come into effect; that could be a year, or a year and a half, or it could be longer than that. Who would want to stand in the way of this opportunity to allow our traders and our citizens to benefit from this free trade deal when we are able to present to you today a very uncontentious tidying-up Bill around procurement that, as I say, will have to follow through in any event on the Scottish measures? The noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Purvis, my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, all covered this point and I hope I have answered the reason for the logic of this Bill and the importance of it.

    I will also cover the issues surrounding negative versus affirmative statutory instruments. It is important to point out that, if you read the Bill, you will see that the powers therein are very specific—they are not intended to relate to procurement beyond the Australia and New Zealand trade Bill. The measures that we are considering that will be brought through as negative statutory instruments will be very procedural; they relate to things like the changing of names of government departments, so to assume—forgive my newness to this place and to Parliament in general—that we need to go through an affirmative process would be extremely cumbersome, time-consuming and really not relevant in this at all. As far as I am aware, the majority of the measures in this procurement Bill are effectively all being employed by procuring agents today anyway, so I am sure this brings much needed consistency, but in terms of changes it would not be significant. As a result, to have an impact assessment around this Bill would be unnecessary because the impact is to ensure that we can do our free trade agreement; it is not necessarily on the procurement processes that we are reforming. In fact, all the reforms seem eminently logical, and we should do them even if we were not doing a free trade deal.

    I was criticised for my tone. I am sorry if people think I am too optimistic about what free trade agreements can give us, but I am excited by what we have before us. I am excited by our post-Brexit vision of Britain, I am excited about the wealth that we can create for our citizens, I am excited about the opportunities that we are going to have for our businesses, and I am excited about enhancing our cultural, societal and citizenly relations with our sister nations in Australia and New Zealand. So, yes, I am excited, and I am frankly amazed that people are not more excited than me.

    Yes, every trade deal has give and take and it does revolve around change; I am aware of that and we should have a debate about it. I think what my noble friends Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, said about what great opportunities these are for us was right. I am a bit frustrated to some extent that we seem to think we are at a standing start with Australia and New Zealand when we are not and that this is the end of the road for our trade deals. We already trade with Australia and New Zealand; this is an improvement or enhancement; this is future-proofing our relationship and building it stronger. If we did not have this agreement, we could not deal with and look at in detail all the issues that people have purported to raise, like animal welfare, agriculture and the environment.

    We can provide the leadership through this process that we could not do without it. That is why it is so wonderful. It is everything that noble Lords opposite should want—the opportunity to encourage trade and wealth creation while showing leadership in our values. That is what this free trade agreement does. We talk about the engagement and scrutiny process. I have great sympathy with that. I am in two minds about the level of scrutiny that is useful when negotiating a free trade deal. It is useful for our counterparts to understand what our citizenry feels about certain important issues, and I know that the Australians and New Zealanders—certainly the Australians—are effective in engaging with their industry base.

    I was involved as a board director of the DIT in encouraging greater engagement with industry in the negotiating process and, frankly, we could continue to do more. I am not averse to suggestions. This is an iterative process and is the first of many deals, I hope. This is the simplest and most straightforward deal that we could have presented to the House, but we want to learn as much as possible from it. Therefore, while I would not look to change the process around the constitutional review that this House and the other place bring to bear on treaties in a specific and formalised sense, I am aware of and indeed desire greater engagement with business and the body politic. We otherwise end up with what we have today, a debate about any of the potential negatives of the deal, rather than people rejoicing in the huge opportunities that it presents to us.

    I am, to some extent, frustrated that not enough businesses have come out to say how much they are going to benefit from these deals when, in fact, they have spoken to me directly about the huge opportunities that there are. I want to try to build a bow-wave around our free trade agenda. I therefore take to heart the views that noble Lords have expressed today about engagement and scrutiny. As I say, while the processes should not change, there could certainly be more forward footedness in engagement. That is a good process, which helps to spread the power of these agreements and makes them more successful.

    I should make one important point. We are looking at these free trade agreements in the wrong way—through the wrong end of the telescope. We are used to trade agreements whereby one does a deal—some 1950s steel-type treaty on tariff allowances or whatever, such as allowing certain amounts of steel into the economy over a certain number of years—and that is it; one is stuck. The reason why the Ponsonby rule came into action was that Parliament was concerned that secret deals were being made that we could not get out of and that we did not know anything about.

    This is different. There has been a huge degree of scrutiny and discussion around these agreements—and this is not the end but just the beginning. They are structured to enable us to have intensive debate around each section, whereby all the key points that we have been discussing have committee and dialogue structures built into their mechanisms, to allow us to change and evolve these treaties. Scrutiny starts on day one. We will be able to make changes to these treaties if they do not suit us in the way in which they were intended to suit our economy and people. That is important. This is completely different from how conceptual treaties worked in the past. I congratulated the negotiators because flexibilities are built into this process to allow us not to be fearful of the outcomes of the treaties, because we can change them. That is at the core of the Government’s negotiating strategy and is why I am so enthusiastic about these treaties. Not only do they give us so much and allow us to lead the world in our value offerings but they are entirely flexible. If they do not work as we intend—it is hard to forecast everything—they can be altered through mutual agreement. That is enormously powerful.

    As to my final point on the impact assessment, we have a review at two and five years and of course I should be delighted to engage further with the House at those points. That is important; we have to assess the impact of these treaties because we want to learn how we can improve them. I very much support that process.

    I conclude on the scrutiny point by saying that I am sorry if noble Lords think that I am too optimistic about what these trade deals offer us. However, the reality is that, because of the way in which they have been structured, one has a high degree of scrutiny over the future of these trade deals and the Government have been forward footed in making sure that Parliament was part of the process, as it was always intended to be.

    I will cover three other points, one of which is the environment. These FTAs include environment chapters which recognise our right to regulate to meet net zero and reaffirm our commitments to the Paris Agreement. This is very important: at no point and in no area do these FTAs derogate our ability to control our own destiny. In fact, by having the negotiations with Australia, particularly before the Government changed, we were able to bring to bear on them the pressure to accord with our climate change ambitions. That is amazing. If the Greens want change in this area politically, this is a very powerful way of doing it—and we have done it. We were the first major economy to pass a legislative target to reach net zero by 2050. That was done by the Conservative Government, not by any other party. We lead the world in this area, and these trade agreements reflect that. In my view, this is another matter for us to rejoice in.

    The deal commits the UK and Australia to work together on climate change; that is very important. In other areas that have come up in the past—not necessarily in this debate—people have raised concerns about deforestation with regards to the FTA. I have mentioned my gratitude to the TAC for the work it has done in this whole process. It reports that, on a net basis, Australia has been reforesting rather than deforesting. Nothing in this agreement stops the Government taking domestic action on our side to deliver on our commitments to meet our climate objectives. I know there is some head shaking opposite me, but I can only go on the facts; I am slightly beholden by that.

    There is a view that Australia and New Zealand are far away, which they are. I like the idea that we are starting at the other end of the world and then working backwards. If you look at overall greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK-based production—largely unchanged from the agreement—you will see that there is a possibility of some increase in transport-related emissions associated with increased trade flows, but, according to the TAC, these impacts are likely to be negligible. This idea that we are going to have huge greenhouse emissions on account of transport increases is simply not being predicted. As my noble friend Lord Hannan pointed out, having a New Zealand lamb chop on your plate in the House of Lords restaurant is better for the environment than having one that comes from another part of the UK. Why can we not ask other parties to celebrate where we see environmental benefits from these trade deals? The assumption is that all trade deals are somehow negative for the environment; how can that possibly be the case? As my noble friend Lord Hannan said—I back up his point; it came from a Board of Trade report—the environmental impact of the production of New Zealand lamb is lower than ours in many cases, even if you include transport costs.

    My final point is very important: this agreement provides huge opportunities to boost trade in environmental goods which can speed the development and uptake of environmentally friendly production techniques. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, also raised this. Again, what are we trying to do with Australia and New Zealand? We are trying to sell them our technology on net zero, where we are global leaders, thus generating wealth for this country and improving our environment. If anyone thinks my tone is too rejoicing at the astonishing benefits that, factually, we bring through this agreement, I apologise again.

    I am very sensitive to the issue of agriculture, and I do not want there to be any sense of triumphalism about this trade agreement in that sense. The fact is that there is change and people are affected. However, it is important to note, first, that this agreement will have relatively limited negative impacts on certain agricultural sectors of the economy. That really is a fact, and I will go through that in a moment. The positives are also significant. We export more agricultural produce, in its broadest sense, to Australia than we import from it, so the gain is in our favour. We believe that the amount of meats which are competitive for us being imported from Australia into the UK will increase by very small amounts.

    As I have repeated, and repeat again, this is not an agreement starting from scratch. We already import New Zealand and Australian meats, and they are not using the quotas that we already have. Yes, we are liberalising our trade, and I think it is right to do that, but the fears that are being created among the body politic and the press are entirely unreasonable and, if I may say so, slightly disingenuous. There is no reason to fear this trade deal. If we did not have it, it would not make any difference in a negative sense on farmers. That is important for people to understand. This is actually an opportunity, because it unlocks—

    Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)

    Is the Minister saying that the impact assessment is wrong about the 5% and 3% reductions? The Minister has just said at the Dispatch Box that, if this agreement were not in place, there would be no negative impact. However, the impact assessment says that this agreement is bringing a negative impact. Will the Minister commit to revising the impact assessment before we reach Committee, because either he has just misled the House or the impact assessment is wrong? They cannot both be right.

    Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)

    I am grateful for that point and would be happy to clarify. I will certainly work closely with the noble Lord in Committee.

    My point is that Australian imports already operate below the existing quotas. Even if we said that we were not going to have a trade deal with Australia and decided that we did not want to go ahead with a deal that I think will be hugely beneficial, we already have a quota system where the Australians are importing less. If we go to a new arrangement where, over 10 or 15 years, we gradually liberalise our agricultural imports, the very fact that we are increasing that higher level does not necessitate that we are going to put ourselves in a more disadvantaged position. I am not trying to suggest that the impact assessments are not correct. I have been sensitive about that; I said at the beginning that there are impacts and there will be change. We must be sensitive to that. However, I am saying that the claims that we are going to have a significant tsunami of Australian beef coming into the UK simply do not make logical sense when we are already importing less than the quotas imply. It is important to mention that.

    We have also touched on another relevant point. There are production differences between Australia and New Zealand; my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere mentioned this earlier. It is important that we take advantage of that fact. I will not be too much longer but let me quote the TAC, which states that

    “different production practices between countries are a function of different climatic, geographical, agronomic, environmental, economic and cultural conditions. Australian cattle and sheep live their lives outdoors, mainly on very large stations, which is different in the UK. It can never be assumed that what is normal in one country needs to be normal in another … Moreover, the international trading system, of which free trade agreements form a part, is predicated upon the understanding that countries should be able to benefit from advantages which they enjoy over their trading partners. Trade law, in principle, prohibits countries from restricting imports of products simply based on how they are made, whether this is by using their more abundant sunshine, land, educational skills or lower labour costs.”

    This is important. We are trying to do a trade deal where we have, enjoy and appreciate comparative advantage while at the same time being extremely firm on the controls that we will put in place to make sure that, if there is a significant increase in imports into the UK, we can restrict those imports and ensure that our farmers are protected. Following the 15-year point, we will still have WTO restrictions that we can fall back on.

    Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)

    Before the Minister finishes, I hope that he will give way for a microsecond. During my contribution, I asked whether he could let us have some detail of the systems that are in place to keep under surveillance the environmental, animal welfare and other standards on which he is giving us assurances, including how effectively they are operating. Will he agree to do that before we reach Committee?

    Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)

    I thank the noble Baroness. I am about to go on to that exact chapter in making my final point on standards, which are important. I take this issue to heart.

    It is absolutely essential for everyone to realise that nothing has really changed in terms of our standards. In fact, we believe that, in some instances, we have increased our ability to protect ourselves. I want to quote from some of the important chapters in the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s report, if noble Lords will indulge me; I know that my noble friend Lady McIntosh wanted me to touch on these matters as well. The report states:

    “Importantly, all of these trade liberalisation obligations are fully covered by general exceptions, taken from WTO law, ensuring that the UK can regulate to protect animal or plant life or health … In addition, the FTA contains several rules in its environment and animal welfare chapters that expand on these rights to regulate, which gives the UK more leeway to override its trade liberalisation obligations—

    that goes to the whole friction between these points—

    “than it would have under WTO law.”

    This is very important. We are ironclad in our ability to control our standards.

    The concept of mulesing was raised. The TCA sees an increase in imports of mutton from mulesed sheep as negligible, and the FTA does not restrict the UK’s WTO rights to prohibit imports of products from Australia produced using the practice of mulesing without pain relief. I was told that 90% of all mulesing is done with pain relief. Yes, there are different practices and clearly, mulesing is not relevant in the UK because of flystrike and other conditions, but we have the ability to protect ourselves and we still have the ability to ensure that the food and goods we import conform to our standards.

    Also, in terms of animal welfare, these chapters are ground-breaking. It is worth using those words, which are appropriate. We have driven change there, and it reflects our values. New Zealand and Australia have a very strong commitment to raising animal welfare standards. It is also very important to point out that we still have complete control over pesticides and other such matters. Our approval process involves audit and assessment of a country’s system. Products entering the UK must be accompanied by certificates and a percentage are subject to physical checks to ensure that standards are maintained. We have worked very closely with the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. This is very important and—

    Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)

    My noble friend will be aware of a briefing from the Food Standards Agency, which is concerned about the increase in what is required of it. He might like to consider that.

    On a slightly separate point, my noble friend said that the purpose of the Bill is that the procurement provisions will apply in Scotland. My understanding is that the Scottish Government have withheld consent to the Procurement Bill so I am not quite sure how, constitutionally, we could not be seen to be circumventing the will of the Scottish Government and the Scottish people in this regard.

    Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)

    I thank my noble friend for both her points, the first of which is heard. The assumption is that these agencies can police our borders. Clearly, if there are different requirements on account of this trade deal—although I cannot see why—certainly, we should look into that. We covered her second point in the debate. These are concurrent powers. We have consulted consistently and continually with all the devolved nations, and we are not requiring a legislative consent Motion to run those concurrent powers.

    I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. I reiterate my willingness to meet noble Lords and discuss this Bill further. Those who have spent time with me over the last month know that I am fully available to ensure that this Bill is a success. I am transparent and open to you and want to ensure that we learn in this iterative process to create even more effective trade deals into the future with different economies. This is not a “one size fits all” process. Just because we have an agreement with Australia and New Zealand does not mean that this agreement will be cut and pasted across to another country. Every country and economy is different and should be treated as such.

    Underpinning this Bill are two extraordinarily far-sighted trade deals between our sister nations, resulting in an estimated £10 billion increase in trade with Australia and £1.7 billion increase in trade with New Zealand. There have been discussions about how we get to those figures. Professor Minford suggested a £60 billion benefit for trade with Australia; our government forecasts gave us a figure of £10 billion. I am happy to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, how to assess these trade deals more accurately. The impact assessment and the look back will help us in that regard.

    As I said to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, we have engaged with the devolved Governments at every stage of the process and have also allowed for greater parliamentary scrutiny than is prescribed in statute. We have shone the torch of the Trade and Agriculture Commission on these issues, and we have built two-year and five-year assessment breaks into the agreement. If we decide that we do not like these agreements, we can cancel them within a six-month notice period. These deals demonstrate our values and leadership on standards—that is very important and has come up in the debate today—how we operate with developing nations, labour rights, gender equality, the treatment of animals and the environment. These deals absolutely protect our agriculture industry and our standards in line with our values, while ensuring that we bring essential benefit to our consumers.

    These trade agreements are designed to be flexible, with a whole range of structures established to ensure proper dialogue and recourse. As I have said, they are not some post-war steel treaties. They are, thanks to our leadership and position as the new driver of our unique free trade mission, modern, future-proofed concepts which allow our nations to grow together in commerce and trade.

    These deals are being made between us and two allied Commonwealth nations, as has also been said, with the same Head of State and with those who died for our values in two world wars. We are their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers and cousins. We already live and travel and own properties, businesses and farms in each other’s countries.

    As came up earlier, our levelling-up agenda plays an important part in how we will work together in the future. I ask Members of the House to talk to some of the firms and people positively affected by these deals. Your Lordships will see the palpable excitement, as I have shown, from chapters such as the ground-breaking one on SMEs welcomed by the FSB. All that is within a consumer protection section that will ensure that our consumers benefit from greater choice and lower prices in our shops.

    Contrary to critics’ view, the Government have thought out our trade strategy well. We want to ensure that our free trade agenda is indeed the framework that launches us on the path to give our citizens the choices and power to reach the ends of the earth. We should be proud of the decisions we have recently taken over our trading destiny and focus on creating a new world order, where we sit at the very centre of a series of geostrategic relationships and prosper from this network of trade and investment, shared culture and values, and build the wealth that gives us security and ultimately control over our destinies, which is at the very heart of our free, liberal and democratic-minded nation.

    The Government have taken the first major step on our journey. We are proud of the modern and comprehensive deals that we have negotiated, and I look forward to the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House.

    Bill read a second time.

  • Chris Lennie – 2023 Speech on Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baron Lennie)

    Chris Lennie – 2023 Speech on Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baron Lennie)

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

    My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests in Australia. They are not about having relations who vote Labour in New Zealand, having the accent or being born with the accent, having been the high commissioner in Australia or having relatives in Australia. I was simply born there and, aged nine months, I was removed by my parents, brought to the UK, and have stayed here ever since. So there is no declaration of interest other than that.

    I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, to his first Bill as a new Minister for trade. I wish him not a long period in office but a reasonable time in office to get used to the seat and so on before the next election. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Swire, on his maiden speech. He has much experience in Northern Ireland, the Foreign Office and elsewhere, and he will bring much to bear in this debate and others in this House. I welcome him. I also thank all other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

    It seems to me that we have identified two key issues: one is about strategy, or the lack of strategy, and the second is about scrutiny, or the lack of scrutiny. That seemed to be a running theme whichever side of the House, or none, people were speaking from.

    I am grateful for this opportunity to add my own remarks to the debate, which presents an opportunity to scrutinise the deals covered by this Bill, as short as it may be, with only four clauses and two schedules. But these are the first trade agreements made from scratch, as others have said, since the UK left the EU, and in the absence of a published government trade policy, this Bill, and the FTAs it helps to implement, represents the premier evidence available of the Government’s post-Brexit approach to trade. This is what we will be judged on. These deals set a precedent both for what the rest of the world will expect from us in this era and, to a certain extent, for the process that we can expect in parliamentary scrutiny of these and other trade deals that will follow. This is a proper precedent. This particular Bill may not have much life, and may be replaced by the Procurement Bill in a matter of weeks, but at least it sets a precedent. I have more to say on that point later.

    Before that, let me express our welcome that these trade deals have been secured, with the deepening of links with two old friends—Australia and New Zealand—and the elements of both deals which will be beneficial for our country. The Government have of course highlighted some of the key benefits of the trade agreements—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, has not just highlighted them but been vociferous in his welcoming of their benefits, which we also welcome, such as the elimination of tariffs on all UK exports to Australia and New Zealand, creating new opportunities for UK professionals and businesses in both countries, and more. However, while they are welcome, it is impossible to ignore—as referred to by a number of noble Lords—that the financial impact of both deals is insignificant and, we might say, wrapped in a degree of uncertainty. As we have heard, the Government’s own assessment estimates that the Australia deal will increase UK GDP by only 0.08% by 2035 and the New Zealand deal by only 0.03% by 2035. So they are not a big deal for our economy, even though they are a big deal given the precedent that they set for deals that we might negotiate in the future.

    Given the significant uncertainty that the impact assessment openly admits, when paired with what is missing it is hard to disagree with the assessments of the Prime Minister, who called them “one sided”, or of the former Environment Secretary, who has been referred to, when he said that the best clause in our treaty with Australia is the one that allows us to rip it up with six months’ notice. They both also suggested that the UK

    “shouldn’t be rushing to sign trade deals as quickly as possible”.

    Given the lack of progress in deals with the USA and India—we had a Written Statement today on India, which says that there is no deal yet and that the seventh round of negotiations is under way, but nothing like a deal is in sight—that does not seem to be the issue, but may certainly explain the continuing stasis.

    These deals were supposed to pave the way for easier CPTPP membership. The Government have said that they hoped to conclude joining by the end of 2022. After 15 months of negotiations, that date has been and gone. What has happened to our purported membership of the CPTPP? Are we waiting to sign individual deals with as many countries as possible before that negotiation can be concluded? Which way is it? Are we trying to join the CPTPP or are we awaiting further deals before we push that attempt?

    As for what is missing from the deals, where do we start? Where is the leadership on tackling climate change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others asked? The Australia agreement fails to set out specific commitments on climate change, with no sign of the reaffirmation of commitments under the Paris Agreement that was promised by the Government. Properly addressing this would enhance all our trade deals, not least because this is a key and growing market for international trade. This was the first opportunity to set the important precedent, and we missed it.

    An absence of engagement with workers’ representatives is clearly shown by the lack of a gold standard of workers’ rights found in these agreements. The TUC highlighted the lack of

    “commitments to ILO core conventions and an obligation for both parties to ratify and respect those agreements.”

    As I said, these deals set a precedent. When we turn to negotiations with countries with inferior worker protections to those of Australia and New Zealand, this will certainly not set a positive foundation for ensuring that workers’ rights are protected there.

    The hit to the agriculture sector has been well documented: the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and others made this point. The Government’s own impact assessment shows a £94 million hit to farming, forestry and fishing and a £225 million hit to our semi-processed food industry from the agreement with Australia. This has rightly been criticised for both lowering standards and hurting British farmers, as others have said. The procurement provisions in the Bill, while certainly welcome, lack a requirement for the specific support that UK firms could benefit from in order to take advantage of the opportunities created by the agreements in both Australia and New Zealand.

    Turning to scrutiny, the elephant in the room is that both of the agreements which form the basis of this legislation are long overdue and have already been signed between the respective Governments. As a result, the scope for changes to the agreements at this time is extremely limited, and we anticipate that our amendments at future stages will show this, through a focus on better assessing the impact of the agreements. In that regard, I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Hayter. She is not in her place today, but I think five members of the International Agreement Committee have spoken in this debate. We are grateful to that committee for its excellent work in scrutinising the agreements themselves through two reports last year, both of which have been very helpful in examining these agreements. The Australia report also presented an additional opportunity for a very useful debate last July, and I understand we are expecting a response to the report on the New Zealand agreement from the Government, probably tomorrow: I await that with keen interest.

    This work has given us something of an advantage over the other place, where opportunities have been particularly lacking. It was deeply concerning that the Government limited the time available for scrutiny of the Australian agreement by tabling it late in the day and by the Trade Secretary delaying an evidence session. I understand that provisions in the Procurement Bill, currently in the other place—it has its Second Reading today—will also make Bills such as this one unnecessary for future trade agreements, further curbing available opportunities for scrutiny. I hope the Government will learn from this and not continue to avoid scrutiny in this manner. Ministers have been granted significant powers in trade negotiations and they can expect that we will continue to push for more scrutiny, so parliamentarians and wider groups can properly impact on the process.