UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Mark Harper – 2022 Statement on Rail Services in the North

    Mark Harper – 2022 Statement on Rail Services in the North

    The statement made by Mark Harper, the Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Members will be aware that, in July 2022, Avanti West Coast experienced an immediate and near total cessation of drivers volunteering to work on passenger trains on rest days. In response, it has had to reduce its timetable to provide greater certainty for passengers.

    Similarly, TransPennine Express services continue to be impacted by the loss of rest day working, higher than average staff sickness levels, and historically high levels of drivers leaving the business.

    The current rail services in the north have therefore been unacceptable, and on November 30 I met with the northern Mayors in Manchester. In that meeting, we agreed that the rail industry is not set up to deliver a modern, reliable service, and that we need both short-term and long-term measures to address this.

    As a short-term measure, Avanti West Coast and TransPennine Express have both been rapidly increasing the number of drivers they employ. This is helping Avanti restore the services that it was forced to withdraw. Services increased in September, and have now increased to 7 trains per hour, restoring the full Manchester-London service. It is therefore disappointing that passengers will not see the full benefit of these changes until the current wave of industrial action is over. I was pleased to see the RMT call off the strike action scheduled for Avanti West Coast on 11 and 12 December, as sustaining this level of service will require the support of the trade unions.

    I have also given TransPennine Express and Northern the scope they need to put a meaningful and generous rest day working offer to ASLEF. However, giving operators a mandate is only the first step. ASLEF needs to enter negotiations, and put any new deal to its members and, if accepted, do all it can to make that deal work. TransPennine has made a generous revised offer to ASLEF and it was almost immediately rejected without being put to members. It is up to the unions to decide if they want to improve services, for the good of passengers and the wider economy in the north.

    Today, the RMT is on strike across the country again, disrupting services and driving passengers away from the railway. In my meeting with the Mayors, we all agreed on the need for a reliable railway seven days a week. That means not having fragile rest day working agreements and breaking the railway’s dependence on rest day working altogether. No modern and successful business relies on the good will of its staff to deliver for its customers in the evening and at the weekend. I want a railway with rewarding jobs, contracted to deliver every service promised to the public. I want to encourage passengers back to a financially sustainable railway.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Statement on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2021-22

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Statement on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2021-22

    The statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has today laid before Parliament a report covering the work of the Committee between August 2021 and March 2022. The 2021-22 annual report demonstrates the wide-ranging work of the Committee across a number of important issues. While there have been changes in Government between the final drafting and publication of this report, I reiterate the Government’s gratitude to the Committee for its continued independent oversight and scrutiny of the UK Intelligence Community, and I look forward to working together.

    The membership of the Committee has changed during the period covered by the report, and I would like to thank the right hon. Dame Diana Johnson MP and the right hon. Mark Pritchard MP for their work on the Committee, and welcome the new Members, Maria Eagle MP and the right hon. Sir Jeremy Wright MP into the role.

    The Government continue to support the Committee on its ongoing inquiries on international partnerships, China, cloud technologies, and Iran, and look forward to seeing the conclusions of the Committee’s subsequent reports. The Government reiterate their thanks to the Committee for its thorough inquiry and detailed report, “Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism”, published on 13 July 2022, and will respond formally in due course.

    The Government value the scrutiny the Committee provides through its inquiries, and this oversight is vital in ensuring the public can have confidence that our agencies are operating in full accordance with the law. Protecting the operational capabilities of the agencies and wider intelligence community to ensure the safety and security of our nation remains a critical priority for the Government. We will continue to engage constructively with the Committee to ensure its effective public oversight, in line with its powers as set out in statute, while balancing scrutiny and accountability with the need to protect our operating capabilities.

    The Government consider the current memorandum of understanding with the Committee to be sufficient to enable the Committee to conduct its statutory oversight duties to provide effective scrutiny and robust oversight of the agencies and wider intelligence community. The Government note the Committee’s comments regarding the provision of sensitive information to parliamentary Select Committees. There is existing guidance establishing that classification is not a reason for Government to withhold information from parliamentary Committees and there is an agreed process in place to provide sensitive information to any Committee as required.

    I would like to again thank the Committee for its work, and I look forward to working with it as it continues its vital oversight duties.

  • Will Quince – 2022 Statement on the Genome UK Implementation in England

    Will Quince – 2022 Statement on the Genome UK Implementation in England

    The statement made by Will Quince, the Minister of State at the Department for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    This is a joint statement with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

    In 2020, the Government published Genome UK, the UK’s genomic healthcare strategy, setting out a vision to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world, underpinned by the latest scientific advances, to deliver better health outcomes at lower costs. The strategy made 45 commitments to be delivered over 10 years to achieve this vision. Delivering this vision will help people to live longer, healthier lives, reduce the burden of illness on the NHS and make the UK a world leader in data-driven healthcare research and innovation.

    I am delighted to inform the House that we are today publishing the “Genome UK—England Implementation Plan 2022 to 2025”, which sets out how we will further progress delivery of Genome UK in England during the current spending review period, taking us to the halfway mark of our ambitious 10-year strategy. In order to allow us to reflect advances in this fast-moving field, we have adopted a phased approach to implementing the strategy, with implementation plans published in line with spending review periods.

    This publication follows the previous “Genome UK: 2021 to 2022 Implementation Plan” in May 2021, and “Genome UK: shared commitments for UK-wide implementation 2022 to 2025” in March 2022. Through extensive collaboration with partners across the genomics community we have set out our priority actions, showcasing the outstanding research and policy work that will take place across England to develop, evaluate and implement new genomic technologies across the health and care system and life sciences sector. As part of this, I am pleased to announce:

    The £105 million of Government funding for a landmark research programme, led by Genomics England in partnership with the NHS, to study the effectiveness of using whole genome sequencing to speed up diagnosis and treatment of rare genetic diseases in newborn babies, potentially leading to life-saving interventions for thousands of babies.

    The £22 million of Government funding for Genomics England to tackle health inequalities in genomic medicine through tailored sequencing of 15,000 to 25,000 participants from diverse backgrounds by 2024-25, as well as extensive community engagement work to build trusting relationships with traditionally excluded groups of people.

    The £26 million of Government funding for an innovative cancer programme, led by Genomics England in partnership with NHS England and the National Pathology Imaging Co-operative, to evaluate cutting-edge genomic sequencing technology and use artificial intelligence to analyse genomic data alongside digital histopathology and radiology images to improve the accuracy and speed of diagnosis for cancer patients.

    Up to £25 million Medical Research Council-led funding for a four-year functional genomics initiative, working across UK Research and Innovation and other stakeholders to establish an industry-partnered world-class offer on functional genomics, building on already existing infrastructure and UK research expertise.

    These are just a few of the many actions that are set out in the implementation plan, which also covers how we will engage with patients and the public; develop the genomics workforce; support industrial growth and explore a possible UK model for how to apply ethical standards in genomic healthcare and research.

    Together, these actions will pave the way to bringing improved approaches to disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to people and patients, transforming healthcare and improving the health of the nation. Through these actions we will also increase private sector investment, by ensuring that the UK is the best location globally to conduct genomic research and grow new genomic healthcare companies.

    Patients and the diverse UK population are at the heart of our journey to the world’s most advanced genomic healthcare system. Equally, this vision cannot be achieved without the support our talented healthcare workforce. I therefore want to emphasise that open engagement with the public, patients and workforce will continue to be central in the delivery of our 10-year vision.

    This implementation plan has been agreed with the Genome UK Implementation Co-ordination Group and the National Genomics Board, which are made up of senior life sciences stakeholders and delivery partners from across the NHS, the charity sector, research, and industry. The devolved Governments will be publishing their own implementation plans, to ensure that genomic healthcare is able to flourish across the UK. Over the next three years we will continue to work with our partners, including the devolved Governments, via the Genome UK Implementation Co-ordination Group and the National Genomics Board, to ensure that we can continue to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world.

  • Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    The speech made by Nigel Huddleston, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    May I say what a pleasure it is to speak on behalf of the Government today as we scrutinise this landmark piece of legislation? I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debates on this Bill, including the general debate, where many of the points raised today were also covered and responses were given by my hon. Friends on the Government Benches. I will try not to repeat that debate now.

    The Government are of the view that the amendments tabled are ultimately unnecessary, and I hope that I will be able to persuade right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw them. The new clauses that deal with issues on impact assessment are unnecessary, as the Government have already committed to undertake assessments of impact of these deals at regular intervals.

    First, the Government have committed to publishing a monitoring report every two years and a compressive evaluation report for each of the agreements within five years of their entry into force. Those evaluation reports will aim to show how, why and for whom the agreements and their implementation have delivered, addressing many of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate.

    Hywel Williams

    Can the Minister therefore confirm that there will be detailed assessments for Wales, including within regions and sectors in Wales?

    Nigel Huddleston

    We will be happy to discuss with many stakeholders the precise nature, content and scope of those reviews, and we will do that in due course.

    This Bill is based on procurement, but while procurement is the only area that requires primary legislation for implementation, it should not be the only area that is subject to review. Therefore, publishing and considering impact assessments that only cover procurement implementation would not be an effective use of parliamentary time, nor would it give parliamentarians a full picture of the economic impact of the agreements. On multiple levels, the proposed amendments relating to impact assessments would not be fit for purpose.

    Regarding the negotiation of the procurement chapters, both chapters build on the baseline in the World Trade Organisation’s agreement on Government procurement, or GPA, setting new international precedents, notably on data transparency and facilitating SME involvement in procurement. While all negotiations are different, my Department is committed to learning from each negotiation and applying those lessons directly to its work. I am confident that that approach towards negotiating procurement chapters allows for high-quality chapters that work well for British business and consumers.

    As mentioned by several hon. Members today, the Bill Committee heard evidence from Professor Sanchez-Graells. We respectfully disagree with the professor’s reading that the chapters do not align with the GPA or that suppliers will not have access to legal remedies against contracting authorities and so cause confusion for and disadvantage British businesses. We do not believe that is the case. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge), wrote in detail to the Committee on that and I have nothing more to add.

    The Government are resolute in our determination to protect the NHS, recognising that it is an institution that is very important to the UK and its citizens. That is reflected in the specific protections negotiated in respect of the NHS in the agreements: health services are expressly excluded from coverage under the procurement chapters and both agreements specifically refer to the NHS and the general exclusions that apply to it.

    On small businesses, the procurement chapters in both agreements include articles on facilitating the participation of SMEs in procurement. We will have people on the ground in the UK, Australia and New Zealand to help to fully exploit the opportunities, and I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we will be providing that support across the UK. The Government have an active agenda of facilitating SME participation and continue to advance that agenda across the free trade agreement programme. We have consulted with businesses throughout the negotiations, including with small and medium-sized enterprises, and will continue to do so throughout the implementation.

    On protecting farmers—again, a hot topic in previous debates—in both the Australia and New Zealand FTAs, the UK secured a range of measures to safeguard our farmers, including tariff rate quotas for a number of sensitive agricultural products and product-specific safeguards for beef and, for Australia, sheepmeat, alongside a general bilateral safeguard mechanism providing a temporary safety net for all products. Equally, this Government are committed to ensuring that UK farmers have the tools they need to secure the export benefits of these trade deals.

    Additionally, it is unlikely that products from Australia or New Zealand will flood the UK market. In 2021, more than 80% of Australian beef exports and nearly 70% of Australian sheepmeat exports went to markets in Asia and the Pacific. New Zealand already has a significant volume of tariff-free access into the UK for sheepmeat but used only a third of that quota in 2021, meaning that New Zealand could already export more sheepmeat to us tariff-free, but chooses not to.

    Geraint Davies

    If New Zealand is not utilising its current quota, why have we chosen to give a completely unlimited quota in 15 years’ time? Given the Minister’s reasoning, New Zealand presumably does not need it, and it just exposes us to unnecessary risk.

    Nigel Huddleston

    All negotiations involve give and take. The hon. Gentleman will also acknowledge, I am sure, that we are also seeking market access right across the globe for farmers and our fantastic food and beverages—for example, by opening up the market in the US for sheepmeat for the first time in 20 years. At the same time, we are seeking opportunities right around the world. Of course, as several hon. Members have mentioned, we are proud of our high animal welfare and food safety standards, which is why we are ensuring that this deal does not compromise on them and that no new permissions for imports such as hormone-treated beef were granted.

    On the Government’s engagement with the devolved Administrations, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), chairs the inter-ministerial group for trade, previously known as the ministerial forum for trade. That forum provides an opportunity for discussion on all matters of trade policy, including the implementation of UK free trade agreements. The forum is not the only opportunity for ministerial discussions; there are frequent bilateral meetings between Ministers. Indeed, later this week, my right hon. Friend is set to meet the Scottish Minister for Business, Trade and Enterprise, to whom I spoke last Tuesday. I also spoke to the Welsh Minister for the Economy on 1 December on a similar basis. In addition to ministerial engagement, discussions with devolved Administrations at official levels have totalled hundreds of hours across the Australia and New Zealand FTAs, including frequent updates by chief negotiators and detailed discussions to draft text.

    It may be helpful to also remind the House that on Second Reading, the previous Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who is sitting near me now, committed at the Dispatch Box never to use the power in clause 1 without consulting the devolved Administrations first. That is a sincere commitment, and one that we will honour.

    Hywel Williams

    Is not the Minister confirming that taking back control extends to Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments but not to the elected representatives?

    Nigel Huddleston

    I am afraid that the hon. Member is misrepresenting the situation. In terms of concurrent powers, this is an established part of our devolution settlement. We are not, in these proposals, proposing anything unusual.

    The breadth of our trade agreements means some policy issues will be within the competence of the devolved Administrations. The Government have always recognised that modern trade deals cover an increasingly broad array of policy matters. To enable more technical discussions, of course, we share draft treaty text with devolved Administrations for comment. That facilitates more detailed and comprehensive discussions between Department for International Trade officials and officials in devolved Administrations. There have already been discussions with the Scottish Government on the drafting of secondary legislation. In respect of the amendments, I understand that the Scottish Government wish to make the necessary statutory instrument to amend Scottish procurement regulations.

    On new clause 12 and its consequential amendments, the super-affirmative procedure is used for statutory instruments when an exceptionally high degree of scrutiny is thought appropriate. An example would be remedial orders, which the Government can use to amend Acts of Parliament should the courts find them in breach of the European convention on human rights. It is therefore wholly disproportionate to use that process to approve a minor technical change needed to implement procurement commitments in the Australia and New Zealand deals. The potential unnecessary use of the affirmative or super-affirmative procedure could lead to delays in those agreements entering into force.

    The Government are working to enter the agreements into force to ensure that UK businesses and consumers can benefit from the significant economic advantages as soon as possible. That is, of course, also the desire of the Labour Governments in Australia and New Zealand.

    I hope that I have reassured hon. Members and that they will not push their amendments.

    Gareth Thomas

    It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister, but it was rather striking that not one Conservative Back Bencher was willing to come along tonight to defend their party’s deal. We have nevertheless had an important debate with important speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson)—whom I congratulate on his appointment—for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams), as well as important interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord).

    Ministers know that there are real concerns about the Australia deal and the precedent that it sets for future deals, and that here have been real concerns across the House about the parliamentary scrutiny of all trade deals, particularly the Australia deal. The behaviour of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), has only underlined those concerns. Many have noted the huge giveaway of access for Australian farmers and how little we have secured in return in the same space. That is the fault not of the Australian negotiators but of the Government’s own wilful determination to get a deal by an arbitrary deadline, whatever the price.

    The House will inevitably return to the issue of procurement. We will certainly encourage those in the other place to explore the concerns that I in particular have articulated in the debate—particularly as negotiations on CPTPP accession are moving forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the “In solidarity with the Ukrainian People” Conference

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the “In solidarity with the Ukrainian People” Conference

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 13 December 2022.

    Thank you very much!

    Dear President Macron!

    Mrs. President von der Leyen!

    President Cassis!

    Prime Minister Støre!

    Prime Minister Hun Sen!

    Prime Minister Bettel!

    Prime Minister Fiala!

    Dear heads of international institutions!

    Prime Minister Shmyhal!

    Dear Olena!

    All attendees, ministers, ambassadors!

    I am glad that we are united by such a new format – such a Conference. Because this means that we are united by the ability to defeat Russian energy terror.

    I remember how you, Emmanuel, called me on November 1 and offered to organize such a format. There have already been massive missile strikes against our energy sector. The constant terror of Iranian drones has already begun. Russia has opened a new front against us, trying to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe of the scale of our entire country. Russia needs a blackout in Ukraine to use it as an alleged defeat of Europe and all our democratic resistance.

    In response, we established a new format of cooperation and do everything for the sake of the country, for the sake of Ukrainians, against blackouts, against energy terror.

    What do we have for today?

    Ukraine withstood hundreds of Russian strikes of varying intensity at our energy sector. But now most of our power plants are unfortunately damaged or destroyed by shelling. All hydroelectric power plants, all thermal power plants… God forbid, but imagine what this would mean in your countries.

    One of the Russian strikes provoked the shutdown of all the nuclear units of our nuclear power plants, automation was activated – fortunately, without incident.

    At least one and a half billion euros are needed only for the superficial quick restoration of Ukrainian energy facilities destroyed by Russian strikes.

    Every time, after every Russian strike, we try to restore the technical ability to generate and supply electricity. Nevertheless, every day our energy workers have to disconnect millions of Ukrainians from the supply due to a critical shortage of electricity in the general energy system.

    Right now, about 12 million people in almost all regions and the capital are disconnected from the supply. Unfortunately, this is a typical situation for us. And we expect new Russian strikes every day, which can dramatically increase the number of shutdowns.

    That is why generators and uninterruptible power sources have now become as necessary in Ukraine as armored vehicles and bulletproof vests. This is the only way to protect ordinary people and the social order in the conditions of the Russian bid for blackout. In fact, a decentralized energy generation system parallel to the main one is currently being built in Ukraine. It is being built very quickly, in all regions, by many subjects.

    But still, it cannot meet all the needs of Ukraine.

    Yes, thousands of Ukrainian enterprises, small and medium-sized businesses, social facilities continue to work thanks to generators.

    Yes, hospitals function on generators, hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been saved thanks to generators, the Internet and communications are insured against outages.

    More than 5,000 Points of Invincibility have been opened across the country – special facilities where people can warm up, charge equipment and use communications.

    And I am grateful to all our partners who are already helping Ukraine with the appropriate equipment to maintain such a level of energy sustainability of our state and society.

    But still, the key task is to preserve the main energy system of Ukraine, to guarantee its stable operation despite any Russian efforts to make Ukraine the darkest place in Europe.

    That is why such a format is needed.

    Here and now we have to agree on specific things that will not only help Ukraine endure the winter. They will also prove as clearly as possible to any anti-democratic and anti-European forces, and primarily to Russia, that Europe has learned to prevent catastrophe and protect its people.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    I will be as specific as possible now.

    First. We need several categories of equipment – these are transformers, equipment for restoring high-voltage networks, gas turbine and gas piston power units. Ukrainian representatives who are present at the Conference can inform you about all the technical characteristics of this request.

    Second. At least until the end of this heating season in Ukraine, we need emergency support from the European energy system. That is, the supply of electricity from the countries of the European Union to Ukraine. The volume is up to two gigawatts.

    For this to become possible, a decision of ENTSO-E to increase import capacity is necessary. Again, all the technical details of such a decision will be presented by our government officials who are present at the Conference.

    Such electricity supply support could cost around 800 million euros in current prices. This is significant. But significantly less than a blackout in Ukraine could cost us all. Therefore, I urge you to make one of the concrete results of this Conference the approval of all decisions for such support of Ukraine with the supply of electricity from EU countries.

    Third. By analogy with the observation missions of the IAEA, which have been agreed to be sent to all nuclear power plants of Ukraine, we call on the European Union to send special missions to the objects of critical energy infrastructure, which are involved in the energy supply of Ukraine and on which the stability of our entire region directly depends. Such EU missions could become a reliable factor in stabilizing the situation and proper international control.

    Fourth. Due to the destruction of power plants by terrorists, we are forced to use more gas this winter than expected. As a result, we need support in the purchase of about two billion cubic meters of gas. It is also a necessary element of our stability that needs your leadership.

    Fifth. Another practical result of this Conference could be an agreement on the financing of the project, which Emmanuel has already started talking about, on the purchase of LED lamps for Ukraine. This may not seem significant to someone. But 50 million such lamps will save about one gigawatt of electricity. Given that the average deficit in our power system is about two and a half gigawatts, this project could also help significantly.

    And sixth. We need a special permanent mechanism for coordinating efforts – the Paris Mechanism. This will make it possible to provide timely and effective responses to every challenge of Russian energy terror. Unfortunately, we do not yet have such a modern air defense system that can shoot down Russian missiles and drones one hundred percent, however we can create such a decision-making system that can one hundred percent make Russia’s terrorist tactics meaningless.

    When the energy stability of Ukraine is guaranteed for the entire winter period, when it is guaranteed that there will be no new waves of mass migration from our country to your countries, it will also be guaranteed that no strikes, no blackouts, no search for weapons somewhere out there in Iran or elsewhere will help Russia.

    Russia will have to think about how to stop aggression. Finally stop.

    Energy is one of the keys to this. I believe that this key will be in our hands, in your hands.

    Thank you for your attention!

    Once again, thank you, Mr. President, Emmanuel, for organizing this Conference. I count on very specific decisions.

    Thank you!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to G7 Leaders

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to G7 Leaders

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 12 December 2022.

    I thank you, Mr. Chancellor, for your words of support and for convening this summit.

    For the opportunity to thank all of you, dear friends, for not losing Ukraine this year! Just as for not losing Europe and the world based on fair rules.

    Millions of our people are fighting and working for the sake of freedom. It is thanks to your support that Ukrainian invincibility has gained so much strength.

    Today I want to acknowledge the leadership of each of you as well as the solidarity of the entire Group of Seven.

    I am grateful to the United States and all Americans for the large-scale military and economic support as well as the support with sanctions. The US has united the free world and established a solid foundation of our security solidarity. Thank you, Mr. President! Our phone call yesterday was substantive, thank you very much.

    I am grateful to Canada and all Canadians for making every Ukrainian feel the sheer power of our friendship. Thank you for solidarity in understanding that Russian aggression is a no local event, but a truly global threat – a threat to everyone on Earth. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister!

    I am grateful to Japan and every Japanese for the strong leadership in Asia for the sake of protecting the freedom and basic norms of international law, as well as for the solidarity over the point that no threats brought by the Russian war should ruin the lives of our nation and all other nations of this planet. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister!

    I am grateful to the United Kingdom and all of His Majesty’s subjects for being the first in Europe to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, for solidarity in building a powerful army, and for the unwavering belief in the victory over evil. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister!

    I am grateful to France and all the French people for reinforcing our artillery and for supporting Ukraine both nationally and at the level of local communities. I am grateful for your solidarity in the vision of the European future – free and equal for all the nations of our continent. Thank you, Mr. President!

    I am grateful to Italy and all Italians for the timely and unhesitating provision of security and financial support. I am grateful to you for solidarity in respect for human dignity, because Russia wants to deprive all free nations of their dignity, and not only in Europe. Thank you, Madam Prime Minister!

    I am grateful to Germany and every German for the wonderful IRISes and for everything that helps us save people and maintain social stability despite Russia’s terror. No matter how Russia would blackmail us, we are confident about German solidarity in condemning the genocidal policy of Russia remaining strong. Thank you, Mr. Chancellor!

    Mr. Michel! Mrs. Ursula! I thank the European Union, you personally and every EU country for uniting our community in an unprecedented way and gradually providing Europe with even more strength and confidence that freedom in Europe will not yield to any tyranny. This year, Ukraine gained the status of the EU candidate and received the much-needed economic assistance and support with sanctions from Europe. I believe we will continue to cherish this solidarity of values.

    Dear colleagues!

    I am asking you to preserve this level of solidarity for the next year. Russia continues its aggression – and therefore, the support for Ukraine must be continued. Next year just as it was this year. But we must also take long-awaited steps to accelerate the coming of peace. Let me name those steps. There are three of them.

    The first is a new force.

    Unfortunately, Russia still has the advantage in artillery and missiles. This is a fact. These capabilities of the occupying army are the ones to fuel the Kremlin’s arrogance. But we can overcome this.

    Ukraine needs modern tanks – and I ask you to provide this defensive capability to us. It can be done right now.

    Ukraine needs constant artillery support with guns and shells. It will not allow escalation from the Russian’s side.

    We need more rocket artillery and more long-range missiles. The more effective we are with such weapons, the shorter the Russian aggression will be.

    The second is a new resilience.

    We must maintain financial, energy and social stability next year. Should we not lose in these aspects, we will win in everything else.

    The reliable protection of the Ukrainian energy sector from Russian missiles and Iranian drones will be the protection of the whole of Europe, because with these strikes Russia provokes a humanitarian and migration catastrophe not only for Ukraine, but for the whole EU.

    I call upon you to increase the assistance to Ukraine in the field of gas. The terror against our power plants forced us to use more gas than expected. This is why we need additional support over this particular winter. We are talking about the volume of about two billion cubic meters of gas – that has to be procured additionally.

    We must be more active with reconstruction. It will clearly demonstrate the true capabilities of the democratic system to the whole world.

    The third is a new diplomacy.

    Ukraine has always led the negotiation process and did everything to stop Russian aggression. Now we feel the opportunity to use diplomacy to bring the liberation of all our people and all our territories closer.

    At the G20 summit in Indonesia, I proposed the Ukrainian Peace Formula – 10 clear points that are quite realistic to implement. For the sake of peace, peace in Ukraine, in Europe, and in the world. You are all aware of those 10 points. I am grateful to you for supporting this initiative.

    I propose to convene a special summit – Global Peace Formula Summit – to determine how and when we can implement the points of the Ukrainian Peace Formula. I invite you, as well as other conscientious countries, to show your leadership in the implementation of the Peace Formula as a whole or some specific points in particular.

    I propose Russia to take a concrete and meaningful step towards a diplomatic settlement, which is being mentioned by Moscow so regularly.

    Very soon we’ll have holidays celebrated by billions of people. Christmas – according to the Gregorian calendar or the New Year and Christmas – according to the Julian calendar. This is the time for normal people to think about peace, not aggression. I suggest Russia to at least try to prove that it is capable of abandoning the aggression.

    It would be right to start the withdrawal of Russian troops from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine this Christmas. If Russia withdraws its troops from Ukraine, it will ensure a lasting cessation of hostilities.

    I hope that you will support our call. Because it is in a global interest. This is part of our Peace Formula. The occupier must leave. It will certainly happen. I see no reason why Russia should not do it now – at Christmas.

    The answer from Moscow will show what they really want – further confrontation with the world of finally cessation of the aggression. The one who brought the war upon us has to take it away.

    In any case, no matter what Russia responds, it is we, the free world, who should keep the initiative just as it was throughout this year – since February 24th.

    I thank you for your attention! I thank Germany for this very effective chairmanship and I believe that Japan’s chairmanship will be absolutely effective as well.

    Thank you once again for your historic support!

    Glory to Ukraine!

     

  • Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    Geraint Davies – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    The speech made by Geraint Davies, the Labour MP for Swansea West, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who has underlined what this debate is about. The Government are in the dock for selling out British interests, in particular farming interests, at a time when Parliament has basically been blindfolded in the process, unable to see the mandate or the negotiations, or to properly ratify the outcome.

    What we have before us is an array of amendments to address the impact of these deals, which have already been signed, on all our sectors—in particular on agriculture, procurement and the NHS. Those are fundamentally important sectors. The amendments, which I support, have been tabled because it is still unclear how much damage has been done by these deals. They were done in haste and rushed through the door, which put us in a weak bargaining position. Any concession was simply just given. We do not know the detail of how much harm has been done. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that we gave far too much for far too little, which I would call the understatement of the year. The Government’s projection is that GDP will grow by 0.1% in 15 years, but we do not really know the details.

    What we do know though, to take the perspective of a Welsh sheep farmer—we heard from the hon. Member for Arfon—is that Australian sheep farms are on average 100 times the size of Welsh ones. We know too that in New Zealand and Australia they only focus on three or four main breeds of sheep. There are also economies of scale—New Zealand focuses on ensuring that nearly all sheep give birth to twins, as opposed to three lambs, which might kill the mother, or one, which would be less productive. We also know that their shelf life and mechanisation of food processing are far in advance of ours.

    We know, therefore, that our farmers face a major threat, at a time when exports to the EU have been stifled by unnecessary barriers as a result of a botched Brexit deal, thanks to which we have seen a 15% reduction in overall trade. So it does not look too good; and what is more, the Government have signed up to giving Australia and New Zealand unlimited access in 15 years, in terms of beef and lamb. What precedent does that set for food exports when we do a deal with Brazil, for example?

    With the war in Ukraine, we are now in a world where people are quite rightly concerned about food security, yet we are basically undermining our domestic production, at a time when Russia has increased its overall agricultural production by 15% since invading Crimea and facing sanctions. Basically, we are saying that we will turn our back on the EU and do a deal with Australia, undermining our own farmers. Is that a good idea? Surely, we need to be producing more healthy food locally, at a time when one in four people in Britain is in food poverty.

    As it happens, I take a particular interest both in food, as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and in trade, as the rapporteur for the Council of Europe, charged with ensuring that democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sustainability are embedded in agreements, but none of those are embedded in the Australia and New Zealand agreements. On democracy, there is no facility for the mandate, the negotiations, or ratification to be properly looked at, hence all these amendments. On due diligence, there is none when it comes to climate change, human rights and so on, where we can find best practice. For example, the EU deal with New Zealand refers to the rights of indigenous people, the Maori people, and various issues about due diligence in supply chains. Our deal does not have those things because it was rushed forward.

    Trading further afield is more environmentally damaging, at a time when we should be concerned about climate change. We also know that Australia is the worst carbon emitter in the world, at 17.5 tonnes per person, compared with the 4.8 tonnes claimed for Britain in terms of production—for consumption, it is 8 tonnes per person. I hope we will have an opportunity to superimpose a carbon border tax in due course and that this deal will not rule that out.

    Sir Mark Hendrick

    I have recently returned from visiting Singapore on behalf of the International Trade Committee, where it was mentioned to us that Singapore has done a green economy agreement with Australia, which looks at emissions as part and parcel of that trade package. Given what my hon. Friend has said about Australian emissions, could he perhaps comment on that?

    Geraint Davies

    My comment would be that Britain should be taking a lead, as it claims to, on mitigating climate change. The way to do that is to take best practice, from Singapore or anywhere else, and hardwire that into current and future agreements. That has not been done, because our economic, climate and other interests have been thrown to one side in order to just tick a box and say that we have got a trade agreement.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle

    My hon. Friend mentioned carbon border adjustments. Is it not the truth that both Europe and America are now leading on these discussions, because they understand that trade deals without proper carbon and border adjustments are just ways of exporting jobs out of countries—degrading those countries, their workers and the environment in one fell swoop?

    Geraint Davies

    I am certainly a big supporter of what the EU is doing on carbon border adjustments, for instance ensuring that we have a level playing field for steel made in south Wales, which emits half the carbon of Chinese steel, and that there is an incentive to invest in green production domestically. The EU has taken a lead and we need to catch up. The United States is subsidising green industry and, as my hon. Friend will know, there is a tension between the two different strategies when it comes to ensuring a sustainable and greener future for all.

    Turning to procurement, clearly it is not exactly a new idea that big multinational corporations will use unelected, private, often secretly held tribunals to try to fine democratically elected Governments who want to pass laws to protect the environment and public health. We saw that in investor-state dispute settlements. Most obviously, at the moment, we have got the Energy Charter treaty, which binds countries for 20 years to being sued if they try to pass laws to help the environment.

    People will know that Germany, France, Poland, Spain and others are trying to withdraw from that treaty, although we have not heard much for the United Kingdom—because of its fossil fuel interests, I assume. My question is: why, when we know those companies will be quick on the draw in taking us to court and suing us, do we allow them a way in on procurement, so that when they do not get the business with the NHS, they can suddenly sue us? That concern is covered in new clause 1, which I very much support.

    Finally, it is obvious that, out of the carnage of the botched Brexit deal, while obviously we want deals with Australia and New Zealand, the haste with which we have approached these deals has left us in a situation where they get all the benefits and we face a prospective loss. That is absolutely disgraceful maladministration from the Government, and I support the amendments to try to mitigate some of the harm done by their hopeless negotiation.

  • Hywel Williams – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    Hywel Williams – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    The speech made by Hywel Williams, the Plaid Cymru MP for Arfon, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for once. It is a unique experience.

    New clause 15, standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), would require an assessment of the impact of the procurement chapters on different sectors of the Welsh economy. It is worth noting that the Senedd’s Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee has called for future trade deals to include impact assessments for the sectors and sub-sectors in Wales, which is important.

    The assessments published so far for both the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements are light on Welsh-specific detail, particularly regarding the potential sub-sectoral and regional impacts within Wales. Understanding the full impact of FTAs on the Welsh economy is necessary to assess what support businesses and organisations will need from the Welsh and UK Governments to prepare for implementation. The better the economic information available to Westminster and Senedd Ministers, the more effectively this can be done. As has been said, farming is not a five-minute occupation; it takes 10, 15 and 20 years.

    I urge the UK Government to commit to publishing cumulative assessments, updated every time a new FTA is signed, showing the impact of post-Brexit trade policy on Wales’s economy and on the UK economy. That is particularly important for our agriculture and semi-processed food sectors. As a result of the agreement with Australia, the agriculture and semi-processed food sectors across the UK are expected to see a reduction in gross value added of £94 million and £225 million, respectively. The New Zealand agreement is expected to lead to a reduction of £48 million and £97 million, respectively.

    Welsh farming unions have warned that both FTAs have set a damaging precedent for unfettered access to agricultural produce. We need to understand how individual procurement agreements and individual FTAs impact different sectors, and how those sectors are affected in the long term by post-Brexit trade policy. Many in those industries believe that Ministers were dashing heedlessly for glossy headlines and failing to fight for the interests of the Welsh and the UK economies, as we have heard. Rather than plugging the Brexit-sized hole in trade, these tiny trade deals will be a body blow to Welsh agriculture and food production. In general, they are not of great interest across the UK, but they are of huge interest to Welsh agriculture and food reproduction.

    Today’s debate narrowly relates to the procurement chapters of both FTAs. It looks like the control that we supposedly took back from the EU goes no further than the Minister. Had Parliament and the devolved legislatures been able to properly scrutinise these deals, the former Environment Minister, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), might not have been on his feet just a month ago criticising the Australia FTA for giving away too much for too little in return. Plaid MPs have met both the Australian and New Zealand ambassadors. Without divulging anything improperly, I would say that both were very pleased with the deal that they secured, and more than a little surprised by the UK’s generosity.

    The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is not in his place and is very much in favour of Brexit, talked about the value of free trade. He would profit, as would many people, from reading the proceedings of the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I served for a while. We had before us Mr Pascal Lamy, who was twice Trade Commissioner for the EU, and also head of the World Trade Organisation. He said that all trade, in theory, is free, and that tariff and non-tariff barriers are there partly as bargaining chips. If we abandon those bargaining chips, as appears to have happened to a great extent in these two FTAs, we have nothing to offer in return. What do we get? Happy ambassadors from countries that have profited enormously and our own sectors, such as agriculture and food production, dismayed because so little has been secured.

    We believe that MPs and the devolved Administrations should have full votes on the objectives of each future trade deal, and access to negotiating texts for that very reason—to ensure that the people of Wales, Scotland and parts of England and Northern Ireland are getting a good deal. Giving the Welsh Government a say is vital if we want trade deals that enhance rather than undermine our local economies. For example, had the Welsh Government been able to amend the FTAs, we would have likely seen a push for geographical indications in the UK-New Zealand FTA. That would have proved extremely valuable for Welsh lamb and Welsh beef, as I am sure the trade body Hybu Cig Cymru would confirm.

    I add my support to new clause 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). NFU Cymru has argued forcefully that the use of geographical indicators would have allowed Wales to differentiate our products in the world market, thus accessing a premium and increased profitability. I add our support to amendments 3 to 5, tabled by the Scottish National party. Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have expressed their grave concerns about the use of concurrent powers in this legislation.

    On Second Reading, the former Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) told this House that discussions were taking place with the Welsh Government on their request for the Bill to be amended to include concurrent-plus powers. Therefore, I would appreciate it if the Minister updated the House on what progress has been made in those discussions with the Welsh Government.

  • Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    I was not expecting to be called at this point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just removing a mint from my mouth.

    Lloyd Russell-Moyle

    Did you think I was going to go on for longer?

    Jim Shannon

    Yes, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to do that—but what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Gentleman, who brings knowledge to these debates and, probably, to every debate. Let me also to say how pleased I am to be able to throw some of my thoughts and those of my party into this debate.

    As a proud Brexiteer—that is no secret—I am pleased to see the opportunities that can and will come from Brexit, and we in Northern Ireland hope that we too will benefit from them. We await the Government’s endorsement of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which will give us the same opportunities as everyone else, but that is for a future debate rather than this one.

    The potential of the Australian and New Zealand trade agreements is exciting for me and many others. The agricultural and fishing sectors are vital for my constituency, so my request to the Minister will be to provide the support to enable our agricultural sector to be protected. We in Northern Ireland are fortunate, in that we export food and drink products worth some £5.4 billion, and we export some 65% of that produce to the EU and across the world. We are already the epitome of what the Government are trying to achieve through this deal, and we are doing that right across the whole world. Lakeland Dairies is a good example. It is already moving to sell its produce in the far east, the middle east, Africa, south America and the USA, so it is very much to the fore. We also have Mash Direct, a buoyant company that is seeking markets overseas, and Willowbrook Foods and Rich Sauces, which likewise have farmers who feed into them. So we have a strong agri-sector in my constituency. The Minister knows that already; I am not telling him anything he does not know. He is always very astute and does his research so he will know what I am referring to, but I seek that wee bit of reassurance that my agri-sector in Strangford will be in a position to have those protections, and that we can be part of that export push that the Government clearly want to bring about.

    The Bill is the outworking of the groundwork to enable us to begin to reach the trading successes that are so needed for all our countries. It is clear that we must make changes to our domestic procurement law, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, in order to implement the public procurement chapters of each agreement. Further, the Bill will enable the UK Government and the devolved authorities to make the regulations to implement the changes in domestic procurement law required to implement the UK free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand. It will also change domestic law to reflect any specific amendments that may come from the Northern Ireland Assembly and other bodies that are required under the agreement with Australia, and apply those provisions to suppliers from the UK and other countries. I should probably have declared an interest at the beginning, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, and I am also a farmer. I live in an area outside Greyabbey where almost all my neighbours are milk farmers and dairymen, and they want to see the potential to sell their products further afield through their company, Lakeland Dairies.

    In an intervention on the shadow Minister, I talked about the need for reassurance that the regional Administrations would not be ignored if their viewpoints were in conflict with the central Administration here in Westminster, although hopefully that will not happen. Can the Minister tell me how the process can be handled in such a way that the protection we in Northern Ireland are seeking to achieve can be one that the Government can respond to in a positive fashion? I genuinely understand that the Government are trying to do that, but I just need to see that in Hansard, if he does not mind, to give reassurance to the farmers back home.

    I was also pleased to see a specific role for the devolved Administrations to be a part of this process. If the Government could only sort out the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill as a priority, perhaps Northern Ireland could be a part of this trade deal in totality. As things stand, our farmers would be precluded from state aid help that would allow them to compete with New Zealand sheep farmers. I understand that this is a debate for another day, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some reassurance on that. There is no doubt among Unionists as a whole that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill should be the No. 1 priority for this House, and I am disappointed to see in today’s press that the Prime Minister is putting it on the back burner and perhaps not bringing it before the House of Lords until February or March of next year. We need to have a strong focus on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

    People in Northern Ireland receive no Government aid towards their heating bills—that is not sorted either. We cannot help people to heat their homes and stay alive if we do not do it centrally from Westminster. We must stop playing with the health of our elderly and vulnerable. If we have not addressed the concerns of the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland, I can understand why other things have not been addressed either.

    My colleagues have expressed the key concern of trading differentials in food production. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) highlighted the issues of land being deforested for cattle production, and of systems that rely on the transporting of live animals. Will the Minister provide clarity on the protections we need?

    UK producers, including those in Northern Ireland, must not be disadvantaged or penalised for abiding by better, more costly standards. It is a privilege for us in Northern Ireland to have the best conditions, rules and regulations for the quality of our products and produce because, when we send them across the world, they can meet the conditions of any country anywhere in the world, including the EU and anywhere else.

    Such trade deals are essential as we move away from Europe, which is crumbling, and look towards alliances with global markets that are happy to live with a give-and-take mentality for our mutual benefit, rather than the one-way system whereby our needs were secondary to those of the EU as a whole.

    Northern Ireland has premium beef, cattle, pigs, poultry and sheep produce. The dairy sector in my constituency is the envy of many other parts of Northern Ireland. The cereal farmers and potato producers around Comber are among the best. Northern Ireland’s food and drink sector is worth some £5.4 billion. It is the region’s largest manufacturer, and its exports are important.

    Our farmers and producers aim for the highest targets, and they have delivered. My farmers in my Strangford constituency, and my fishermen in Portavogie in my constituency and in Ardglass and Kilkeel in South Down, and across Northern Ireland, are dedicated to traceability and are passionate about quality. That needs to be encouraged, and I think the Minister wants to encourage it. I look forward to his winding-up speech and, even at this stage, I ask for reassurance that the fears of my farming community in Strangford, and of farming communities across Northern Ireland, will not become a reality. The farmers back home want to know they are part of what the UK Government are pushing.

  • Sarah Green – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    Sarah Green – 2022 Speech on the Australia and New Zealand Trade Bill

    The speech made by Sarah Green, the Liberal Democrat MP for Chesham and Amersham, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    The trade deals between our country and Australia and New Zealand are historic. They are the first deals that this Government have negotiated outside of the European Union. They will have significant consequences for our farmers, exporters and a number of key industries and, importantly, they chart the course for the UK’s journey as an independent trading partner and negotiator. It is disappointing, then, that today’s debate is the most extensive opportunity many of us will have to feed into such agreements.

    The provisions of the Bill apply to just one of the 32 chapters of the UK-Australia agreement, and one of the 33 in the New Zealand agreement. That means that the impact of the Bill and the amendments tabled by Members is restricted and does not go nearly as far as we might like. It is no secret that these deals are a disaster for British farming. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed new clauses 7 and 8, which would require the Government to report on the impact of these chapters on British farmers and on environmental standards, food standards, animal welfare and biodiversity.

    Our farmers have been sold out by a Government willing to sacrifice far more than they should have to get new deals across the line. It is farmers who will be forced to pay the cost of the Government’s shiny new deals, with a combined hit to the agricultural, forestry and fishing sector of £142 million and to the semi-processed food sector of £322 million. The costs of producing sheepmeat are 65% lower in Australia and 63% lower in New Zealand than in the UK. While the Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), has reassured us that his Department is confident that the UK market will not experience an influx of the import of such meat as a result of these agreements, the risk remains that the complete removal of tariffs will allow UK markets to be filled with this cheaply produced meat.

    Tim Farron

    Does my hon. Friend agree that it is obvious that one reason why Australia and New Zealand can compete with us unfairly and more cheaply is that, with no offence to those two great countries—they are friends of ours—their animal welfare and environmental standards are significantly lower than the United Kingdom’s? It is not right to give their farmers an advantage over our farmers by virtue of their having lower quality standards.

    Sarah Green

    I agree. This country’s high environmental and animal welfare standards, which we are rightly proud of, mean that if such an outcome were to happen, British farmers would simply be unable to keep up. It is hardly surprising that the chief executive of the Meat Industry Association of New Zealand hailed the FTA as delivering

    “a major boost for sheep and beef farmers and exporters”.

    The Australian farming industry has similarly celebrated its deal. By contrast, the UK’s NFU is clear that the deals will benefit those in the southern hemisphere far more than farmers here at home. Even a former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has commented that these deals are “not very good” for Britain.

    Our farmers are an essential part of our economy and our society. They are key to delivering food security and to maintaining environmental and animal welfare protections. The Government have already botched the transition to the environmental land management scheme and have now, with these first two free trade agreements, made it clear that protecting farmers’ interests is not a priority.

    Current commitments to evaluate the impact of the deals as a whole will not show the full impact on the farming industry. The Government must provide an agriculture-specific evaluation, so that they can identify the damage done, and intervene to support farmers in other ways as soon as possible.

    Turning to the impact on business, the Bill has been welcomed by UK business organisations including the British Chambers of Commerce. I welcome the inclusion of a chapter dedicated to small and medium-sized enterprises in both deals, but this is a challenging time to run a small business. Increased bills and operating costs combined with reductions in consumer demand have left business owners struggling to pay suppliers and forced to reduce staff numbers and hours. When I surveyed small business owners in Chesham and Amersham earlier this year, I found that almost a quarter of those impacted were being forced to consider shutting up shop entirely.

    Recent changes to our trade landscape have made it particularly difficult for small exporters to stay in business. HMRC found that between 2020 and 2021, the number of UK firms classing themselves as exporters fell by 15%. That decline was most acute in the south-east of England, where the number of exporters fell by 23%. That will not be a surprise for business owners in Chesham and Amersham, several of whom have told me that the difficulties they have experienced exporting to Europe have forced them to give up on exporting altogether. It is clear that efforts to increase our exports are much needed, yet securing tariff-free trade alone will not do that. It must be accompanied by a concerted effort by the Government to ensure that new exporters and those looking to expand their horizons can access the new markets.

    Although the Government have promised guidance, their recent efforts to support exporters have left much to be desired. The quality of advice on trading with Europe in recent years has been so low that it has left even experienced international exporters tearing their hair out. A repeat of that failure would seriously limit access to the benefits of the deals promised to exporters. Detailed guidance and expert advice is essential.

    In particular, clear steps must be taken to assist SMEs seeking to participate in procurement processes in Australia and New Zealand. The procurement chapters covered by the Bill offer a real opportunity for our small businesses. However, there is concern over the difficulties encountered by SMEs accessing public procurement in the UK and how that might translate to their attempts to take advantage of access to procurement overseas. That was illustrated eloquently by Lucy Monks of the Federation of Small Businesses during the Bill Committee, and I hope that the Government will take heed. Boosting trade is about not just creating opportunities, but ensuring that those opportunities are open and accessible to a range of businesses of all sizes.

    Reviewing the Bill’s impact on SMEs would allow the Government to monitor the extent to which promised benefits are successfully translating to real business gains and to reassess the support on offer if they are falling short. That is covered by new clause 9, which has been proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

    The central concern about the Bill is its extremely narrow scope. Back in July, the previous Secretary of State promised us that it would provide Members with an opportunity to scrutinise the Australia deal in detail, yet the impact of the deals goes far beyond the chapters covered by this Bill. The Government have stated that the deals’

    “impacts cannot be disaggregated by individual chapters”,

    so the Bill is clearly not the opportunity for scrutiny that we were promised. It is not only the Bill’s scope that is limiting, but the timing of this debate, which takes place after the end of the period set out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 for both deals, meaning that we have no practical ability to object to them or amend them.

    The Government conceded far too much to get the deals facilitated by this Bill over the line as quickly as possible. I note that the current Secretary of State has committed to taking a different approach to future deals by prioritising quality over speed. I hope that she might also consider forging a new path on scrutiny and ensuring that hon. Members have a proper say on future deals.