UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • 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.

  • Jeremy Purvis – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baron Purvis of Tweed)

    Jeremy Purvis – 2023 Speech on the Australia/New Zealand Trade Bill (Baron Purvis of Tweed)

    The speech made by Jeremy Purvis, Baron Purvis of Tweed, in the House of Lords on 9 January 2023.

    My Lords, I think I followed the first eight minutes of the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, which were against government intervention, followed by four minutes of supporting state subsidies, but I will read Hansard tomorrow to see if I have got that wrong. I am also keen to find out how long the new year’s resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, lasts. With all this optimistic chat about scotch whisky, my one for dry January will not be lasting very long.

    I thank the Minister for engaging with me and others before this debate. I note that he said in his opening remarks that he has a continuing financial interest in New Zealand. I wonder if he could provide some more information on what that is and place it in the Library. That would be useful to know, since he is the Minister for Investment implementing this series of agreements. I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. I can reassure him that if he marches in the wrong direction towards a different Lobby from that of his Government, he will not be roundly condemned by all sides. I welcome him to this House and look forward to his contributions.

    Last week was going to be a momentous week for us regarding trade. It was to be the week in which we secured, according to the promise in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, that 80% of our trade would be conducted through trade agreements, but that has been missed by a very large margin. Instead, we have seen new barriers and burdens on businesses trading with our nearest neighbours repeatedly increase, while trade with and imports from less free countries, such as China, also continue to increase. But we should take solace that this agreement, representing 0.08% over 15 years, will edge us that little bit closer to the 80% mark.

    I also welcome the Minister’s enthusiasm for these debates. He was giving full-throated support for FTAs, but I noted that just a few days ago it was reported that the Secretary of State, Kemi Badenoch, told MPs that she

    “wanted us to move away from the DIT being seen as the Department for free trade agreements and back to the Department for International Trade”.

    I am not sure how it can go back to being that department, given that there has been list after list of boosterism with regard to FTAs. I understand that her favourite quote refers to trade deals being like motorways. She has said that if cars are not going back and forth, then you might as well not have built them in the first place. The problem is that we are building one lane for exporters from the UK to their markets, and three lanes from theirs to us. As George Eustice highlighted in the debate, on this agreement we

    “gave away far too much for far too little in return”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/22; col. 424.]

    Agreeing with the Conservative former Secretary of State for Defra does not necessarily make you anti-free trade. It just means that you are concerned about poor negotiations in free trade agreements. They are not necessarily inconsistent. It is interesting that George Eustice, Liam Fox and others now say that it would strengthen their hand in these negotiations if Parliament approved negotiating mandates. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Marland, on this. At the time, Ministers say that it will weaken their hand in negotiations. But when they are no longer Ministers, all of a sudden, they say, “I wish Parliament had approved my negotiating mandate because it would have been stronger”. How much precedent do we need to be persuaded about this?

    I have a collection of press releases on my desk in the Lords because I have been covering international trade for a wee while. Those press releases relate to agreements. There could be a quiz at the end of the year on which press releases relate to which trade agreements. “Gold standard” is one; “world leading” is another; “Brexit bonanza” is a third; “most advanced ever signed” is a fourth and

    “a major moment in our national history”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/20; col. 25.]

    is a fifth. If boosterism was a commodity, then we would be world leading. That does not necessarily bring about any extra GDP growth. My favourite one was from Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the former Secretary of State, when she was in Australia last year. She said that this agreement would bring down UK inflation. She said it as a Minister on a visit to Australia. I would be grateful if the Minister could write and say how much it is going to contribute to this and how.

    The Australians, probably quite rightly, referred from their perspective to this as a “once in a generation” agreement. It is not a good deal for us, as George Eustice has said, but the Australians, to give them credit, have negotiated a good deal. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is absolutely right that there was a degree of suspicion among government that extra scrutiny would not help the Government’s case on the agreement they signed.

    On the Grimstone rule, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that he is right. We debated the Australia agreement in Grand Committee, but the Commons did not have an opportunity to do it and had to call for an Urgent Question to have time to discuss it. What had then been the Grimstone rule—on cue, the noble Lord is soon to resume his place as I refer to him—no longer applies. When he gave that commitment with great sincerity in debate on 23 February 2021, he replied to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and me:

    “What have we done? It includes committing to allow time for the relevant Select Committees to report on a concluded FTA before the start of the CRaG process.”—[Official Report, 23/2/21; col. 729.]

    It is not before the conclusion, or during the scrutiny period, but before the start of the CRaG process. That is no longer in place, which is to be regretted.

    I asked the Minister a Question before Christmas on a separate agreement to incorporate human rights in all FTAs, which has now been reneged upon. The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister—I was interested in his contribution today—asked a follow-up question and said that he hoped FTAs would not be “Christmas trees”. The Minister agreed with him. However, he is supporting a bauble of a Bill, because procurement is not trade but public finance policy. How Governments choose to spend taxpayer money is not like businesses doing business with others or the consumer. It is about public taxpayers’ money being spent; it is extra. If it is okay to have procurement, then it is also okay to look at labour standards, human rights, sustainability and indigenous communities. That is what makes these deep and comprehensive agreements about the trading relationship—and, critically, fair trade.

    I have to warn the Minister that his comment on setting aside trade and human rights, which I hope he will reflect on, will concern those in Northern Ireland, because human rights is hard-wired into both trade agreements and procurement rules within the United Kingdom. Moving dramatically away from that will mean that we will also have to change our development policy and strategy, because trade, human rights and trading with free nations with human rights standards is an integral part of the development strategy published by this Government. If that is no longer the case, we need a new development policy as well to remove this utter incoherence.

    A ridiculous element raised in this debate is that we are almost going through the last rites of a Bill before it is made deceased by the Procurement Bill, which is receiving its Second Reading in the Commons today. This is simply not the way we should properly legislate—but we will do our job and scrutinise it properly. But, yet again, we are debating a Bill that has a significant impact in devolved areas and that is introducing new concurrent powers. I remind the House that concurrent powers are the invention of this Government, where they say that, if a devolved Government do not make a decision to act in their areas of competence, the UK Government will do so if they want. This is not consistent with the principle of devolution, and it is therefore no surprise that there is significant concern in the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament. Due to the fact that statutory instruments will likely be brought forward to directly act on devolved policy—without LCMs themselves—we need to know what they are before the conclusion of the Bill in this House. So I hope that the Minister will be able to publish draft instruments expected from the Bill.

    As we have heard today, a question then arises about the impact the Bill will have overall. We know that it is likely to cause 0.08% to 0.1% GDP growth over 15 years, but I note what the former Secretary of State said about giving away “too much” for “too little in return”. From the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others, we know that some of these critical sectors—beef and lamb—will decline by 5% and 3%. This will disproportionately impact areas such as those in the lowlands of Scotland that I was elected to represent. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, made the point, which I referred to, that that is okay because you can give state subsidies to those areas, presumably as long as it is consistent with WTO subsidy rules. But, as the noble Baroness indicated, what is the point of having a procurement policy that proactively supports purchasing from a sector of the economy that the Government know is being reduced by an agreement that they negotiated? This is utterly contradictory and pointless.

    On the procurement side, the Government’s press release indicated that the agreement

    “gives UK firms guaranteed access to bid for an additional £10 billion worth of Australian public sector contracts per year.”

    I was interested in this because, according to the Australian finance ministry, total public procurement spend in Australia was £46 billion. The UK equivalent is £379 billion, so there is no dispute about who is more attracted to getting access to a bigger market. But from that 81 billion Australian dollars, you deduct 10 billion for thresholds differences, 12 billion for things already procured by overseas interests and another 11 billion for defence. You are therefore left with a total market of £27 billion, which is already governed by the GPA. So I simply do not know where this extra £10 billion-worth of opportunity, which we were not able to access through global procurement, comes from. I would be grateful if the Minister could give a detailed breakdown, because I am interested in how we are able to get another £10 billion—which does not exist—from that £27 billion. Perhaps this is boosterism, but I will allow the Minister to write to me with a detailed breakdown.

    I would be grateful to know, because it has not been mentioned so far, why there is no detail in the Government’s impact assessment on the fact that the Australian approach is to allocate at least 20% of all their procurement to their SMEs, which means that that element of the market is still closed. I would also be grateful to know if the Government could say why we acquiesced to Australia’s carve-out for local government to be excluded from the agreement—we only found out about that in a side letter which confirmed it. Why is local government procurement, which the Minister did not mention, not included in the agreement?

    There is a very interesting contradiction between this Bill and the Procurement Bill, which the Commons is discussing at the moment: unique to the agreement on procurement with Australia, and to satisfy the Australians, we have increased the threshold for procurement. We did not receive any information on this from either the noble Lord, Lord True, or the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, during the many debates on the Procurement Bill. All procurement for subcentral government levels in the UK is £213,477, but for Australia that figure has gone up to over £350,000. I do not know why the threshold for procurement, as it stands in the UK across all areas of procurement, is different for the Australians. That is deeply confusing for all those procurement bodies, because they will likely need to state whether a source of procurement is from an Australian enterprise and therefore operating under a different threshold from all other procurement within the UK. I simply do not know how that will operate, but I would be grateful if the Minister could put us right on that or if we could pursue it in Committee.

    I will make two final points in drawing to a conclusion, one of which is a point of principle on some of the differences on agriculture we have heard in the debate. We have heard from some noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and others—that the elements of agriculture should have been accelerated. It should not have been over a 15-year period, because consumers, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, indicated, should receive sooner the bounty of what this agreement was intended to give. Theoretically, that is an interesting argument for full liberalisation, but, as George Eustice has said, we already had full liberalisation from us to them; what we have done is given them full liberalisation to us with nothing in return.

    I checked the impact assessment during the debate, and paragraph 5.2 states that the total sum impact on UK consumers of the agreement with Australia is, in the long run, over 15 years, £2.4 million annually—thruppence per person a year in year 15. So what are the consumer bounty benefits that will come at the cost of our hill farmers losing 5% and our beef manufacturers losing 3% of procurement? I do not see the benefit for consumers; the benefits which have been presented today are mythical. But the Bill will go into Committee and there will be ample opportunity for us to learn more about the benefit of 3p a year per consumer while seeing our hill farmers being reduced.

    In conclusion, this leads us to a very clear case for a comprehensive trade policy which links to our rural economy sector and the need for parliamentary scrutiny. How many former Ministers in the Cabinet does it take for the Government to realise that Parliament approving negotiation mandates will strengthen the UK, not weaken it? We have FTAs that were a priority, but now they are not. Deadlines, which were previously vital for the agreements, are now not helpful. Human rights were integral to the agreements, but now they are not a priority. Data policy was consistent with the EU and then not, and now might be; we do not know where that stands. Dispute resolution mechanisms are different in Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia; they are utterly inconsistent. There is labour mobility in Australia, but the Home Office warns against it for India. There are other contradictory areas in what we are asked to approve by the Government. We need a government trade strategy with a policy that is approved by Parliament; that will help us do our job in this Parliament.

  • 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.