Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Report stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee.

[Relevant documents: Third Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee of Session 2021-22, Implications of the UK-Australia FTA for Wales, HC 481, and the Government Response, HC 895; e-petition 554372, Establish free movement and trade agreements with Canada, Australia and New Zealand.]

New Clause 1

Impact Assessment

“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters within twelve months of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act and every three years thereafter.”—(Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

16:23

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Assessment of impact on farmers—

“At least three months, but not later than six months, after the coming into force of the government procurement Chapter of—

(1) the UK-Australia FTA, and

(2) the UK-New Zealand FTA,

a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Chapter on farmers in—

(a) each region of England

(b) Scotland

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland.”

New clause 3—Impact assessment: equality and human rights—

“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on equality and human rights within three years of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act and every three years thereafter.”

New clause 4—Impact assessment (No. 2)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters within five years of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act and every five years thereafter.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must present an analysis of—

(a) the impact on each of the four nations of the United Kingdom; and

(b) social, economic and environmental impacts.”

New clause 5—Assessment of impact on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland within six months of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 and every six months thereafter.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and before the Scottish Parliament.”

New clause 6—Assessment of impact on Geographical Indications in the United Kingdom—

“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on the operation of Geographical Indications in the United Kingdom within two years of the coming into force of Regulations made under section 1 of this Act.”

New clause 7—Impact assessment: British farmers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on—

(a) livestock farmers,

(b) arable farmers,

(c) upland farmers,

(d) tenant farmers, and

(e) family farmers.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the procurement Chapters on British farmers.

New clause 8—Impact assessment: environmental standards etc—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on—

(a) environmental standards,

(b) food standards,

(c) animal welfare standards, and

(d) biodiversity.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the procurement Chapters on environmental, food and animal welfare standards, and biodiversity.

New clause 9—Review of effect on small businesses—

“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on small businesses.

(2) The assessment must consider in particular the impact of those Chapters on the ability of small businesses—

(a) to import goods,

(b) to export goods,

(c) to employ staff, and

(d) to remain solvent.

(3) In this section, “small businesses” means any business which has average headcount of staff of less than 50 in the tax year 2022-23.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the procurement Chapters on small businesses.

New clause 10—Impact assessment: National Health Service—

“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on the National Health Service within three years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.”

New clause 11—Review of negotiation of procurement Chapters—

“Within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must publish—

(a) a review of the lessons learned from the negotiation of the procurement Chapters, and

(b) an assessment of how this experience might inform negotiations of future free trade agreements.”

New clause 12—Super-affirmative procedure—

“(1) This section applies where an instrument is, or, as the case may be, regulations are, subject to the super-affirmative procedure.

(2) A draft of the instrument or regulations must be laid before the relevant institution.

(3) The appropriate authority must have regard to—

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of the relevant institution, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of the relevant institution charged with reporting on the draft,

made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft.

(4) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the instrument is or, as the case may be, regulations are approved by a resolution of the relevant institution, the appropriate authority may make an instrument or statutory rule in the terms of the draft.

(5) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the appropriate authority wishes to proceed with the draft but with material changes, the authority may lay before the relevant institution—

(a) a revised draft, and

(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.

(6) If the revised draft is approved by a resolution of the relevant institution, the appropriate authority may make an instrument or, as the case may be, statutory rule in the terms of the revised draft.

(7) For the purposes of this section an instrument or statutory rule is made in the terms of a draft if it contains no material changes to its provisions.

(8) In this section, references to the “60-day” period in relation to any draft are to the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid before the relevant institution.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) no account is to be taken of any time during which—

(a) if the relevant institution is the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly, that institution is dissolved or is in recess for more than four days;

(b) if the relevant institution is both Houses of Parliament, Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.

(10) In this section, “relevant institution” means—

(a) in the case of an instrument to be made by a Minister of the Crown—

(i) for the purposes of subsections (2), (5) and (8), both Houses of Parliament,

(ii) for the purposes of subsection (3), either House of Parliament,

(iii) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (6), each House of Parliament

(b) in the case of an instrument to be made by Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament;

(c) in the case of an instrument to be made by Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru;

(d) in the case of regulations to be made by a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly;

(e) in the case of an instrument to be made by appropriate authorities acting jointly—

(i) for the purposes of subsections (2), (5) and (8), both Houses of Parliament,

(ii) for the purposes of subsection (3), either House of Parliament,

(iii) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (6), each House of Parliament

and, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

New clause 13—Impact assessment: climate change—

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on tackling climate change, not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the passage of this Act.”

New clause 14—Impact assessment: labour rights—

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters on labour rights, not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the passage of this Act.”

New clause 15—Welsh sectoral impact assessment—

“The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the procurement Chapters on each economic sector in Wales within twelve months of the coming into force of regulations made under section 1 and every 12 months thereafter.”

This new clause would require the UK Government to publish Wales-specific impact assessments which include an assessment of the impacts on specific sectors.

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before completion of such public consultation as the appropriate authority considers appropriate with the relevant—

(a) Scottish ministers

(b) Welsh ministers,

(c) department of the Northern Ireland Executive, and

(d) representatives of the English Regions.”

Amendment 2, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish ministers in relation to any matters affecting farming in Scotland.”

Amendment 3, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish ministers in relation to any matters affecting Scotland.”

Amendment 4, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not come into force before the date on which the procurement Chapters come into force.”

Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—

“(4) This Act expires on 31 December 2027.”

Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 9, line 5, leave out from “to” to end of line 6 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.

Amendment 7, page 9, line 8, leave out from “to” to the end of line 9 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.

Amendment 17, page 9, line 8, leave out from first “the” to the end of line 9 and insert “affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).”

Amendment 8, page 9, line 11, leave out from “to” to end of line 12 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.

Amendment 9, page 9, line 14, leave out from “to ” to end of line 16 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.

Amendment 10, page 9, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

Amendment 11, page 9, line 25, leave out from “to” to end of line 26 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.

Amendment 12, page 9, line 28, leave out “negative” and insert “super-affirmative”.

Amendment 13, page 9, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (5).

Amendment 14, page 10, line 2, leave out from “to” to end of line 3 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.

Amendment 15, page 10, line 5, leave out from “to ” to end of line 7 and insert “the super-affirmative procedure”.

Amendment 16, page 10, line 8, leave out sub-paragraphs (9) to (13).

[Gareth Thomas]

We made it clear on Second Reading that we want real and meaningful increases in trade, particularly with two of this country’s greatest friends and allies, Australia and New Zealand—both led so ably by progressive Labour Administrations. We therefore made it clear that we would not oppose the Bill. After all, trade is fundamental to this country; it is part of what being British means and it will be a vital weapon in our armoury to tackle the economic crisis that this country faces, which the incompetence of the governing party has so greatly deepened.

We also made it clear, as others have done on both sides of the House, that there are significant concerns about the consequences of the slapdash way in which these deals, especially the Australia deal, were negotiated by Ministers. I am told that Canada is already using the precedent of the Australia deal to press for similar access for its farmers. These amendments are needed to mitigate some of the impact of those mistakes that Ministers made to try to make the best of a bad job.

I am afraid that in Committee there was little attempt to acknowledge, or indeed apologise for, those failings. Nothing since suggests that Ministers at the Department for International Trade have learned the right lessons. Indeed, the recent detailed comments by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—now freed from the burdens of office and therefore the requirement to cover up for his colleagues—confirmed the widely held view that the Australia deal was bad for Britain. He reinforced the need for significant reforms to how deals are delivered. The current Prime Minister also thought that this was a one-sided deal. Therefore, our amendments and new clauses would help ensure that the procurement chapters, at least, of both deals could be implemented only following serious consultation with all parts of the UK, proper impact assessments, and further detailed and specific scrutiny by this House.

On new clause 1, the Public Bill Committee and the International Trade Committee heard detailed concerns from one of Britain’s leading procurement experts that the Australia deal would worsen the protection for British firms seeking to win Government contracts in Australia, and that major infrastructure or other high-profile British national projects could be disrupted if an Australian firm, unsuccessfully bidding for a contract, went to court to try to overturn the decision using the legal uncertainties that, he argued, are being written into our contract law by this procurement chapter. He also stated that the potential benefits for British businesses of these procurement chapters were likely to be somewhat less than Ministers had claimed.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good point—a point that the Secretary of State for International Trade unfortunately did not seem to be fully up on when we questioned her last week. She has now promised to investigate this area. Is it not a good example of how, not necessarily the legal risk, but the uncertainty will lead multinational companies to divert their trade through regimes that are certain? Britain will therefore lose out as long as there is uncertainty, even if that is not a reality.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Equally significantly, Professor Sanchez-Graells, in his evidence to the Bill Committee and to the Select Committee, suggested that the protections for British businesses trying to win Government procurement contracts across CPTPP—comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—countries would be damaged if Ministers continued to negotiate similar provisions to those that are in the Australia procurement chapter. We examined his detailed concerns in Committee. The absence of a cogent and compelling rebuttal from the then Minister was striking. To be fair, shortly after the end of the Committee stage, a further letter from the outgoing Minister of State was sent to me, and a copy was placed in the Library. I shared a copy of that letter with Professor Sanchez-Graells, who reiterated his concerns, noting the lack of clear counter arguments for the assertions in that letter. Indeed, there were not any worked-though, real-life examples of the sort that I raised directly with the Minister in Committee to explain why the concerns articulated by Professor Sanchez-Graells are misplaced.

Given that this Bill is specifically about procurement, and given that Professor Sanchez-Graells was one of only two witnesses asked to comment on procurement by either the Bill Committee, the other place’s International Agreements Committee or this House’s own International Trade Committee, it was a little surprising that there was not better preparation by the Department for consideration of his arguments. I do recognise that the Department was in a degree of chaos at the time, with Ministers coming and going, but one can only hope that the Minister replying to this debate has a little more to offer.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this underlines the fact that there is not enough scrutiny and democracy in the process, and that this House should have the opportunity to look at the mandate for future deals and to scrutinise the negotiations as well as the ratifications, so that we do not get a deal that offers a hopeless 0.1% GDP growth over 15 years?

[Gareth Thomas]

Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend leaps ahead of me; I will come on to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny in just a moment.

My last point on the case for new clause 1 is that such an impact assessment would also allow us to explore the extent to which small and medium-sized enterprises were able to take advantage of this trade deal. We know that SMEs need the most support to take advantage of free trade agreements and, given the cuts to the tradeshow access programme, for example, we know that SMEs are likely to face real challenges in exporting. New clause 1 cannot change the way Ministers negotiate future procurement chapters, but it would at least require an honest and detailed assessment of the impact of those chapters on British businesses.

16:30

On new clause 2, the neglect of British farmers by the Conservative party has been extraordinary. Once upon a time, the Conservatives professed to care about rural communities. Now, as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many deficiencies in public transport in many of our rural communities—yet this deal, negotiated by the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), with the current Minister of State at the Department for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) as her willing lieutenant, still managed to find a bus to throw British farmers under.

We

“gave away far too much for far too little in return.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.],

the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said. He also stated:

“We cannot risk another outcome such as Australia where the value of the UK agri-food market access offer was nearly double what we got in return.”

There was clearly a ministerial decision taken to ignore the concerns, views and lived experience of British farmers and their representatives in the National Farmers Union.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a member of the International Trade Committee, may I reiterate that point? It was clear to me and many other members of the Committee, as the negotiations went on under two previous International Trade Secretaries, that it was going to be the first deal negotiated from scratch and that therefore there was an attempt to use it as a tick-box exercise, to add to those roll-over deals that were already agreed, and there was haste to get the deal done so they could say for the first time that a separate deal had been done that was not a roll-over.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I hope he is able to catch Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye later on so that he can draw it out further.

New clause 2 cannot, I am afraid, put right the disregard of those on the Government Front Bench thus far for the vital role that British farmers play in the economic and social fabric of our country, but we can at least learn from that desperate rush to get any deal with Australia, regardless of the price. I hope Ministers will take this opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes made during the negotiations and will back this new clause. If not, I will seek the permission of the House and put it to a vote. I have said I hope Ministers will acknowledge mistakes, but we do not expect any apologies. After all, there have been so many apologies from the Government over the last few months that their worth has devalued more quickly than sterling under the last Chancellor.

New clause 12 and the consequential amendments 6 to 16 are designed to address some of the cross-party concern about the obvious failures on parliamentary scrutiny that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) alluded to. In the usual Conservative tradition, having made such enormous errors in her leadership of the negotiations with Australia, there was only one option for the then Secretary of State: she was promoted. Indeed, in the lucky dip that was this summer’s Tory leadership contest, she won the chance to be Prime Minister for the month and, consistent with her achievements on trade, delivered economic chaos, higher mortgage bills and a return to deep austerity.

The following Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), swiftly fell out with her colleagues—a scenario almost too difficult to imagine. Tories falling out with each other? Who on earth would have seen that happening? Instead of the world-leading scrutiny process we were once promised for new free-trade agreements, she adopted a new one: invisibility. On at least eight separate occasions, the previous Secretary of State failed to front up at the International Trade Committee to answer important questions about the new deal. She seemed somewhat keener to tour the TV studios questioning the work ethic of her then ministerial team.

There is, I have to say, a striking consensus outside the House—across business groups of every economic sector, and among trade experts, charities and non-governmental organisations working on trade—that the CRaG process is not fit for purpose post Brexit, and that one of the key lessons from the Australian FTA negotiations is the need for better parliamentary scrutiny. We cannot deliver that better scrutiny for all FTAs today—not least given the narrow context of this legislation—but we can certainly make sure that Parliament considers further the regulations that implement the procurement chapters of the deals. A super-affirmative provision would give Parliament an additional layer of scrutiny for trade deal regulations under the Bill before those regulations can come into force. I hope, again, that Ministers will have the grace to accept the amendment and will not force me to divide the House.

New clause 10 underlines our concern that trade agreements must work for the NHS and not undermine or make even more difficult the task of repairing a great public service after 12 years of callous mismanagement by this Government. On procurement specifically, the last thing that anyone would want in a trade agreement is carelessly drafted provisions that enable a dispute about whether an overseas-owned building firm lost a redevelopment contract fairly, for example, to delay much-needed investment in new NHS hospitals, or vital funds that could have been spent on new doctors and nurses having to be used to compensate overseas firms for not winning a procurement contract. If the independent expert from whom the Select Committee and the Bill Committee heard evidence is correct, the drafting of the procurement chapter in the Australia trade deal—and, I understand, this is also likely to be so in the CPTPP—creates legal uncertainty in the remedies available to overseas businesses bidding for UK Government contracts. It is possible, then, that major public services such as the NHS could see delays to the rebuilding of hospitals and/or money that could have been spent on recruiting doctors and nurses being wasted on compensation for overseas firms that have lost out in a procurement competition.

Take the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, for example, which urgently needs replacing. Its roof must be monitored daily, four out of seven operating theatres have had to be shut, and the roof is held up by 3,600 props. That is, I suggest, one powerful example of the neglect and mismanagement of the NHS under the Conservative party. Imagine if funding were committed to and tenders issued for such a rebuilding project, only for building work to be held up because of the legal uncertainties in the Australia deal on remedies for firms that lost out unfairly in procurement processes. Surely, a proper understanding of the impact of trade deals on our public services is essential. If there is nothing to worry about, Ministers should not find it difficult to commit to providing such assessments, should they?

On new clause 11, it is clear that these trade deals are not going to deliver the sustained boost to economic growth that this country desperately needs. Yet in the land of make-believe that the Conservative party now inhabits, the Australia deal was sold to us as the start of a brave and amazing post-Brexit era for British trade. The deal does not look like global Britain; it looks to the world like gullible Britain. On the upside, unlike the Conservative party’s trade deal with Europe, the Australia and New Zealand trade deals did not lead to the value of the pound dropping, but the tendency of Ministers in the Department for International Trade to exaggerate the benefits of the deals they sign underlines the need for a full review of the lessons learned from each negotiation.

We all remember talk of an “oven-ready” trade deal with the EU—it turned out to be anything but. Then there was the promise of 77 of Britain’s most iconic food and drink products, from Shetland wool and Whitstable oysters to Carmarthen ham, getting immediate protection in Japan as a result of the UK-Japan deal. That has yet to happen. We have had the promise of billions more in procurement contracts for British business, but there is little evidence that that will happen.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend knows that a large of amount of New Zealand and Australian trade is historically in left-hand-drive cars that were made by Japanese companies based in Britain. Those companies are leaving the UK, and the EU has now got a trade deal with Japan and will have one with Australia and New Zealand. It is therefore likely that those Japanese companies will produce left-hand-drive cars and sell them to New Zealand and Australia, but not via Britain. In other words, the deal will prove negative rather than marginally positive.

[Gareth Thomas]

I hope my hon. Friend accepts that the case I am making for providing serious and detailed impact assessments for future trade deals will help to ensure that his point gets proper consideration in future.

I hope that new clauses 13 and 14 remind Ministers of the significance of trade for working people and of the need for trade to play its part in helping to tackle climate change and accelerate progress towards net zero. When the Australia deal was negotiated, two Conservative Governments, both with distinctly underwhelming records on climate and workers’ rights, were in the negotiating room. In this country, the Conservative party has consistently sought to exclude representatives of working people in the trade unions from all significant consultation on trade deals. The trade deals that we as a country sign should raise standards, support better employment and help to tackle climate change instead of, as the Conservative party seems to want, heralding a race to the bottom.

We have tabled amendment 1 to stimulate serious and sustained detailed consultation with all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom on the details of the chapters of the trade deals. It is a reminder to Ministers of the need to step up and improve further their discussions with the devolved Administrations and with the regions of England about the impact of deals on specific communities and economic sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) gave the example in Committee of farmers in Wales, where 85% of the beef and 60% to 65% of the sheepmeat produced are consumed in the UK. There is genuine concern about the impact of a huge hike in tariff-free quotas of meat from Australia and New Zealand on our farmers’ ability to sell into our markets, with all the obvious implications for rural communities, family farms and economic, social and cultural life.

There are similar concerns across the regions of England, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The Select Committee on International Trade heard evidence that the Department cannot yet model fully the impact of trade deals on the nations and regions of the UK. That is all the more reason for better consultation before new trade regulations come into force.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

On livestock and meat, is not it the case that a sizeable amount of our imports comes not from Australia or New Zealand—and they would not under the agreement—but from the EU and South America?

[Gareth Thomas]

Absolutely, but we have conceded that the deals are important and that they must be supported, and we want more trade with Australia and New Zealand. I gently say to my right hon. Friend that it is right to ensure that the deals work much better than they appear set to do at the moment. I hope that our amendments will help to achieve that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s point in relation to Northern Ireland. We export some 65% of our agriculture produce to the EU and across the world. Ever mindful of that, we seek the same assurance from the Minister—perhaps it will come at the end of the debate—that those in Northern Ireland will not be penalised in any way. I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and support, and I look forward to the Minister attempting to answer his concerns as well as ours.

Free trade agreements were supposed to be one of those freedoms that would bring us prosperity after Brexit, but, in truth, this is not about Brexit; it is about the competence and ability of this Government, and about the honesty and transparency of Ministers. If they believe in any of those qualities, Government Members will adopt these amendments without Division. If they do not, we will have even more proof that this Government do not even believe in themselves.

16:45

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 4, 5 and 6 and amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 17 in the name of my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry).

The top line for us at this stage of proceedings is that we cannot support this Bill with the agricultural terms of the trade agreements left unamended, particularly as the Scottish Government have responsibility for agriculture in Scotland but have had no direct role in negotiations and remain deeply concerned by the impact that both of these agreements could have on the Scottish farming sector as well as food and drink.

These deals are being rushed through at an horrendous time for UK farmers. Farmers are already battling with skyrocketing fertiliser prices, animal feed prices jumping by on average 30%, the avian flu outbreak, the Brexit labour shortages, and the rising diesel costs, to name but a few of the issues at present. Therefore, we would think that at this point, rather than rushing on at breakneck speed, there would be opportunity to take the time to get this right—to make sure it is carefully calibrated and is in the interests of farmers and the food and drink industry, and indeed all industries across the totality of the UK economy.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

rose—

[Richard Thomson]

If the hon. Member can explain why there is such indecent haste I will be delighted to yield.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he might tell us what the perfect amount of time is for a trade deal to be signed?

[Richard Thomson]

I am not sure there is a perfect amount of time, but we can certainly spot a duff deal when it is being rushed through.

[Anthony Mangnall]

rose—

[Richard Thomson]

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient and remain seated I can perhaps go through some of the shortcomings that have arisen, because we were helped enormously in coming to an assessment—

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Thomson]

Of course.

[Hywel Williams]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to inform the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) that the Canada trade deal took seven years and that the much-heralded trade deal with the United States is still awaiting further progress.

[Richard Thomson]

The hon. Gentleman has communicated that most deftly. The House can see why there was such a rush because we were done a very valuable service the other week by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who blew the gaff comprehensively when he revealed that at some point in early summer 2021 the then Trade Secretary took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude the trade deal by the G7. I am sure the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) can see straightaway the problems in trying to conclude any trade deal on such an arbitrary timeline and that the outcomes from doing so would be suboptimal even if it were not for the revelation that was about to follow.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Since the hon. Gentleman has challenged me, I see no problem in setting timelines if we can achieve them, and in fact what the Government have managed to do is start negotiations with the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership, do a trade deal with Japan on digital partnerships, do a digital partnership with Singapore, undertake the Australia and New Zealand deals, look at where we can do a trade deal with India, and start negotiating with Canada. If we set ourselves some objectives, that sets a standard for what we can achieve.

[Richard Thomson]

If only that were actually the case—[Interruption.] When it comes to achieving good outcomes, the problem here is that this was not done from a position of strength; it was done from a position of considerable weakness, as we will go on to hear. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House to hear what the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, but allow me to elucidate and then he might elect to put the shovel down for a moment. He said that

“at one point the then Trade Secretary asked her Australian opposite number what he would need in order…to conclude an agreement by…G7. Of course, the Australian negotiator…set out the Australian terms, which eventually shaped the deal. We must never repeat that mistake.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 425.]

I accept that there has been a duality in much of what the right hon. Member has said at different times. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Totnes is also to reveal such a duality.

[Anthony Mangnall]

indicated dissent.

[Richard Thomson]

No, he is not. Somehow, I did not think that he would.

Clearly, there is nothing quite so liberating as a loss of ministerial responsibility. The right hon. Member went on to tell the House that

“the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK”,

that

“the UK gave away far too much for…too little in return”

and that, further, in his view,

“the best clause in our treaty with Australia is that final clause, because it gives any UK Government present or future an unbridled right to terminate and renegotiate the FTA at any time with just six months’ notice.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424-5.]

The SNP happens to agree that that is probably the best clause in the Bill as it stands—

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is the only good clause in the Bill.

[Richard Thomson]

I hear my hon. Friend say that it is the only good clause; we are not looking to amend it.

Clearly, the right hon. Member’s views in 2022 are significantly more closely aligned with reality than those that he was obliged to defend publicly in 2021 and those which the current crop of Trade Ministers are clearly obliged to defend now.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend is doing a much better job than the previous guy did in his role [Laughter.] Is it not a fact that while Government Members try to defend this awful deal, not only have they lost the support of a former Minister who once supported the deal and now, freed from office, thinks it is awful, but, actually, their own Prime Minister thinks that this is a bad deal as well?

[Richard Thomson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is quite clear that the objective was to get chalk on the board rather than to get any trade deal in place that might actually improve on or even equal or replicate that which was there. The thing is, the Government did not need to travel far to get the feedback that this was not a good deal. Scottish sheep and beef farmers could have told them that it was not a good deal; indeed, they tried to do so from the outset. They knew fine well that these deals would undercut UK farmers while delivering next to no benefits for the agrifood sector at large. It was clearly far more important for the then Prime Minister to be seen to be getting Brexit done and forging on with deals—whether they were any good or not—than to secure positive outcomes for consumers and producers in this country.

As there is clearly nothing quite so liberating as the loss of ministerial office, there is evidently nothing quite so constraining as the gaining of ministerial office. While I am glad to congratulate my constituency neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on his elevation to his new post—this is the first chance we have had for exchanges across the Floor since he took that role—I will take him back to comments he made on the BBC’s “Debate Night” programme in March 2021. I am sure that he is already pulling that out of the memory banks. In response to a question from the audience, he said that young people are not reaping the benefits of Brexit. Surely that is a candidate for understatement of the year. I think we can now add the Scottish food, drink and agrifood sector to that, for whom there are absolutely no benefits.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Thomson]

I am spoilt for choice. I think I heard the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) first. I will then come to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar).

[Richard Foord]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Mary Quicke from my part of Devon has become an export mentor, but she has indicated that exporting cheese to the Indo-Pacific is becoming more difficult. She said that

“we’ve had cheese that’s taken four weeks to leave here, with a vet’s certificate to Japan and then it sits at customs at Tokyo for three weeks.”

Given that it is now more difficult for cheese sellers to sell to the UK’s biggest market in the EU, does he agree that that is a disgrace?

[Richard Thomson]

Absolutely. As I was listening to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was working out what my punchline was going to be, and I see that he already had it there. It certainly is a disgrace that those barriers have been put in place to hinder the exports of what I am sure is fine produce indeed.

[John Spellar]

Surely it is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman is making out. Did we not have a substantial trade deficit in agricultural products with the countries of the EU as well?

[Richard Thomson]

There may have been a deficit in totality, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to contend that the situation has been made any easier by the trade environment we now find ourselves untimely ripped into.

We have to ask, “To what end?” Even the UK Government’s own analysis shows that the trade deal with New Zealand will deliver a mere 0.03% benefit in GDP to the UK over 15 years and the Australian deal 0.08%, all the while the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement will lead to a contraction of UK GDP by 4.9% over 15 years.

A number of safeguards could have been put in place in the agricultural chapters to protect farmers: no full liberalisation irrespective of time period; lower quota terms; percentage controls on the ratio of frozen to fresh carcases to protect the high quality Scottish fresh meat trade; clauses that work out beef and lamb tonnage quotas in a carcase-specific way, so premium cuts are protected; seasonality clauses; clauses to ensure the exports and imports of high value meat are properly valued; and trigger safeguards that could have been applied to protect the domestic market against any surge in imports in a particular year.

On new clause 5, it is important that an assessment is carried out on the impact of implementation of the procurement chapters on hill farmers and crofters in Scotland. Many in the hill farming and crofting communities are highly economically marginal. They have a huge economic importance in terms of supporting their areas, but the economics can be precarious at the best of times and they will certainly not be made any easier by the terms of this trade deal. The risk of undercutting standards through the deal means that meat is likely to end up costing less in the UK if it is shipped in from Australia or New Zealand, rather than if it is produced at home.

Analysis by Quality Meat Scotland has concluded that New Zealand beef farmgate prices are anywhere between 25% and 30% lower than Scottish farmgate prices, and 10% lower than their Scottish counterparts for lamb, undercutting on price. Matters relating to food standards fall within the competency of the devolved Administrations, but they have absolutely no power to exclude imported products on the basis of how they have been produced or on the undercutting of standards that feed into the undercutting of prices.

Donald MacKinnon, the chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation, speaking of the 15-year-long transition period, said:

“This is about changes that can happen over a much longer period of time. Agriculture does not operate on year-to-year, short lifecycles. We operate in generational terms in our businesses, and 15 years is a relatively short period of time in that sense. So it is not that we are concerned that the negative impacts are going to happen straightaway. This is about the long-term future of our industry. That is what my members are concerned about.”

Jonnie Hall, director of policy, National Farmers Union of Scotland, said:

“Ultimately, an awful lot of procurement contracts will be negotiated on price, given that there will be a written understanding, at least, that the standards in them will be of an equitable value, if that is the right expression. It is the competing on price piece that will probably be of more concern to Scottish producers than anything else, because we operate under different agricultural production systems and our cost structures are therefore different…it may be that New Zealand and Australian produce is more attractive simply in terms of value for money—I will call it that, but the word ‘value’ is not right.”

It is notable that the EU managed to secure the same market access into New Zealand for its exporters as the UK, but at a much lower cost to its domestic producers.

The Secretary of State has said that she is a huge believer in British farming and the role it plays in our national life, and has written about her fears of the impact that opening up our markets will have on domestic producers. We firmly believe that she should allay those fears by renegotiating the agricultural chapters of these deals with the new Australian Administration and the New Zealand Government. We should ensure that we monitor very closely the impact it has on our agricultural communities. While renegotiating, she might also want to consider the fact that Australia is one of the few countries in the world that maintains an effective absolute ban on the importation of UK beef. The Secretary of State has said that she does not believe the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs raised concerns with the World Trade Organisation via the Department for International Trade on this issue. That should certainly happen, and it should certainly have been addressed in the trade deal to make sure that this barrier was lifted.

16:59

Amendment 3 is a measure designed to protect devolution and make sure that it is respected not only in law, but in spirit. Sadly, it is wholly in keeping that, even in such a narrowly focused Bill as this, the approach taken by the UK Government undermines the precepts of devolution. The Scottish Government have consistently and successfully implemented international obligations on procurement since 2006, when they first transposed EU directives into Scottish law. The Scottish Government, unlike the UK Government at certain points over the last few years, have never wavered in their commitment to upholding international law. It is our firm belief that the powers in this Bill should not be exercisable by UK Ministers in relation to Scotland without a requirement to secure the consent of Scottish Ministers. That is also the belief of the cross-party Economy and Fair Work Committee in the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Government have said in their legislative consent memorandum that they do not intend to lodge a legislative consent motion for the Bill as introduced, based on two concerns: first, UK Ministers would be able to make secondary legislation in devolved areas without a requirement to first seek consent from Scottish Ministers; and, secondly, the delegated power allows for implementation of the agreements as amended in the future without the Scottish Parliament knowing what any future amendments might be at the point of giving consent. Of course, the Scottish Government will continue to try to engage constructively with the UK Government to find an approach to this Bill that is acceptable, and we encourage the relevant UK Departments to do the same. However, it should never have got to the point where the Scottish Government are having to ask for these basic requirements to be respected at such a late stage in the negotiation and ratification of these deals.

It is a matter of great regret that the devolved Administrations with responsibility for agriculture, wherever they are in the UK, have had no direct role in the negotiation of these deals, and that absolutely has to change when we are negotiating future trade deals to replace those left behind.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is it not the case that in most countries that have federal, confederal or other such arrangements with devolved nations, those nations are involved and embedded in the negotiating teams? Does that not show the arrogance, in relation to co-operative relations across the Union, of this Conservative party, which seems determined to fulfil the hon. Member’s party’s wish, which is to annoy people in Scotland so much that they want independence?

[Richard Thomson]

That is certainly an interesting take, and entirely understandable, but I would far rather be making the arguments for Scottish independence on their merit, rather than on how much we and all the devolved Administrations are being vexed by a high-handed UK Government who are over-mighty and overreaching in this respect.

We have already been forced against our will in Scotland to trade outside of the EU and to be tied to a UK Government who seem hellbent on agreeing trade agreements at almost fire-sale prices just so they can pretend that Brexit is working. That is a thoroughly invidious position to be in, but it is the position we find ourselves in, for the moment at least, and we are determined to do all we can to try to mitigate the damage on this before we go back to the issue of principle that the hon. Member has raised. Make no mistake: the impact of these agreements will be felt throughout Scotland, and to that end it is vital that not just the Scottish Government but all devolved Administrations can have a full role, with their input being listened to, respected and acted on in future negotiations.

The Bill did not have to be like this. It was entirely possible to take a longer period of time to reach a more considered view. For those absolutely hellbent on leaving the European Union, there were better ways of doing it than the unmitigated car crash that has followed from the way successive iterations of Conservative Governments have gone about it. They seem to have spent more time negotiating among themselves than negotiating with those who matter. There are better ways of doing this, and there are better outcomes that can yet be agreed. I strongly urge the UK Government to repent, go back and try to achieve something better. It is within their grasp if they have the will to do so.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I support the new clauses on impact assessments after various periods on issues affecting farmers, procurement, the UK regions, equality and human rights, and I shall make reference to the way in which the negotiations have been handled, the attitude of various Secretaries of State to scrutiny and, in particular, the role of the International Trade Committee.

As a member of that Committee, I have seen at first hand the Government’s mishandling of the trade measures that the Bill will implement, as well as their lack of transparency and of a coherent strategy on negotiating free trade agreements. Under the two previous Secretaries of State—the right hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)—the Government have deliberately prevented MPs from having a say in the details of the deals. It is painfully obvious how haphazardly negotiations have been handled.

Meanwhile, the Government have continued to tout the number of trade deals that they have secured, but the truth is that a majority of those deals are simply rolled-over deals forged when the UK was a member of the European Union. They are not even close to achieving the 80% of UK trade that they claimed would be covered by trade agreements by the end of 2022, including an agreement with the USA, which was pledged in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

Australia and New Zealand have the distinction of being non-EU countries with which the UK negotiated trade deals from scratch post Brexit, but the proof is in the pudding. The trade deals are terrible for Britain. They benefit Australian and New Zealand exporters more than UK exporters, while UK agriculture, forestry, fishing, and its semi-processed food industry are left to suffer the consequences. Australia and New Zealand received full liberalisation on beef and sheep and unfettered access to the UK food market, but the UK did not receive the same concessions in return. The Government’s own Back Benchers have exposed what we have known for some time—that securing those trade measures was a box-ticking exercise, rushed through to get a deal done, and not necessarily in the best interests of the UK.

The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), recently criticised the Australia trade deal in the Chamber as not actually being a very good deal for the UK, admitting that

“the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”

Indeed, he said that

“since I now enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches, I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed…unless we recognise the failures the Department for International Trade made during the Australia negotiations, we will not be able to learn the lessons for future negotiations.”

He went on to say:

“We did not need to give Australia or New Zealand full liberalisation in beef and sheep—it was not in our economic interest to do so, and neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom he has just quoted, also said that he felt that the Government were in such a rush to get a deal signed off before the G7 summit in Cornwall last year that they bypassed a great deal of scrutiny of the agreement, even by themselves, so for political reasons they cast aside the interests of British farmers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is truly reprehensible?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree that that is reprehensible, but it was not the first time that it happened. The Japan deal was a roll-over deal, but parts of it were new and were added at the last minute. The Government delayed the details until 24 hours before the report was published, so the International Trade Committee could not scrutinise it properly and comment on it. It happened with Japan before it happened with Australia.

[John Spellar]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the irony that the Liberal party, which was founded on free trade and campaigning against the corn laws, is now becoming an agriculturally protectionist party?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I will not comment too much on that. There are rules to free trade—it is not a free-for-all—but at the same time, I do not think that the Liberal Democrats believe in totally free markets any more than we do.

Records show that the former Prime Minister, then the Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk, pressed ahead with the deal despite receiving detailed warnings from her own officials in 2020 that she was acting against the UK’s best interests. The British agricultural industry and farmers already facing pressures from inflation and labour shortages stand to lose the most from this Bill, as the NFU has long maintained. These deals are not in our economic interest and are a threat to domestic business and food security. They could also force many farmers out of business, according to the NFU president, Minette Batters. Ultimately, the Government may see implementation of these deals as a stepping stone to accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, but I am dismayed that that is at the expense of our own farmers and our wider economy.

May I ask the Government to review the negotiations on the chapters of this agreement, and the lessons learned from those negotiations, and to make an assessment of how this experience might inform the negotiation of future trade agreements? If other countries, in CPTPP or elsewhere around the world—whether in South America or wherever—can see that this country can be rolled over so easily in its negotiating power, it sets a bad precedent for future trade deals.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

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.

17:15

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.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

We are here to talk about a very small part of a much wider trade Bill. To some extent, we are only talking about it because the Procurement Bill has not been brought to this House from the other place. If it had, we might not even be talking about some of this Bill’s clauses at all. Is that not a disgrace? Almost no other country has such poor scrutiny of its trade arrangements.

Of course, Britain did not have such poor scrutiny of its trade arrangements before we left the European Union. In this place, we were able to use the negative resolution procedure at several stages, including the pre-stage. The European Parliament had the right to vote down the deal at the pre-negotiating stage, as well as the final deal, and our Government could do so through the Council.

Now the Government, in all their ineptitude, are the ones who decide. They forced the CRaG process through, which in itself was unnecessary because ratification cannot be fully implemented until all the legislation has been laid down. There was no need for the CRaG process to happen last year without any substantive debate or vote in this place, because the trade deal cannot be fully brought into force until this Bill has passed.

The Government’s whole about-arse process on trade —we have heard all the criticisms made by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—shows that they have no real plan and no real idea about how to negotiate. When I ask my Australian colleagues what they may have compromised on and what we may have gained, they say, “It’s a pretty good deal for us—we wrote it.”

Through the amendments on procurement, there are several things we can do to ameliorate the mess that the Government have made of this deal. First, we can ensure that Parliament has scrutiny over how the details will be implemented. If the deal goes through, as we heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and in my intervention on him, it might weaken the protections on procurement.

Ensuring that the statutory instruments laid before the House are not written as poorly as the Bill and the trade deal, so there is no wiggle room on procurement, should be our first step. The way to ensure that is by holding Ministers’ feet to the fire. In the Bill Committee, the Minister seemed a bit unsure about how the affirmative procedure and the negative procedure work. It is clear that if statutory instruments are made via the negative procedure, there will almost never be a debate in this House. They will go through without debate, because Members of this House will not be able to pray against them in time; sometimes we have seen Governments deliberately laying statutory instruments when the House is not sitting and cannot pray against them. That is the reality.

The only way to ensure debate and discussion, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, is to ensure that the affirmative procedure is applied. That must be the bottom line. It is not hard, and it will not delay the process, because the Australians themselves need to go through an affirmative procedure when they implement measures. This is asking for nothing more than our counterparts are getting; to offer anything less would be to devalue and degrade Britain. We know that the Conservative Party is doing quite a lot of that at the moment, but come on; let us, at least on this one, show that Britain counts. Britain should be able to get something as good as what is available to Australia and other countries around the world. Underselling Britain is disgraceful, and we need to reverse that.

Secondly, we need clarity on the legal clauses. It needs to be made clear that they will not undermine the current protections around the world. As I said in my intervention, it is not a question of whether, in a court of law, we might reach a point at which British companies would be successful; that is irrelevant. The question is, would it be necessary to go to a court of law to determine whether British companies would be able to obtain compensation, or would everyone be so clear about the fact that a French company would be able to obtain compensation that a French competitor would be given a marginal competitive advantage? That is the question that arises from the poor wording in the Bill.

If a marginal advantage is given—even a theoretical advantage that in practice does not come about—multinational companies that can channel their trade either through their British company or through their French company for large procurement deals will do it through the French company, and then where will the tax be paid? Where will the revenue return? It will return to France, and Britain will lose out again. It is therefore vital for this clause to be included.

I am also deeply disappointed—and I wish the Government would accept some of the amendments that deal with this—about the fact that for Australia, the procurement requirements do not count at state level because Australia is a federal system. All its procurement, in respect of education, roads and building, universities and community facilities—I could go on—is at state level, so this trade deal does not bind the Australians. Because of the way this Government have negotiated the deal, they want to tie the hands of our devolved authorities and local government in a way in which Australian hands are not tied; again, selling Britain short. What we could see is the proper integration of our devolved authorities and local government, particularly big strategic local government—for instance, London-wide government and Metro Mayors. We could include them in the negotiations, or, even better, ensure that future negotiations do not allow an asymmetrical position in which we are included and others are not.

This is a poor deal, as we know from the other side. This is a poor Bill, which accepts everything from one side and protects Britain not one jot. The Opposition new clauses and amendments go some way towards ameliorating that. Ministers should accept them, thus ensuring that we can truly champion British businesses that are trying to trade around the world. That is what I genuinely believe we all want.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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.

17:30

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.

[Hywel Williams]

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.

17:44

[Geraint Davies]

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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Nigel Huddleston)]

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.

17:59

[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.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Assessment of impact on farmers

“At least three months, but not later than six months, after the coming into force of the government procurement Chapter of—

(1) the UK-Australia FTA, and

(2) the UK-New Zealand FTA,

a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the Chapter on farmers in—

(a) each region of England

(b) Scotland

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland.”—(Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

18:07

Division 119

Ayes: 192

Noes: 296

“(1) This section applies where an instrument is, or, as the case may be, regulations are, subject to the super-affirmative procedure.

(2) A draft of the instrument or regulations must be laid before the relevant institution.

(3) The appropriate authority must have regard to—

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of the relevant institution, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of the relevant institution charged with reporting on the draft, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft.

(4) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the instrument is or, as the case may be, regulations are approved by a resolution of the relevant institution, the appropriate authority may make an instrument or statutory rule in the terms of the draft.

(5) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the appropriate authority wishes to proceed with the draft but with material changes, the authority may lay before the relevant institution—

(a) a revised draft, and

(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.

(6) If the revised draft is approved by a resolution of the relevant institution, the appropriate authority may make an instrument or, as the case may be, statutory rule in the terms of the revised draft.

(7) For the purposes of this section an instrument or statutory rule is made in the terms of a draft if it contains no material changes to its provisions.

(8) In this section, references to the “60-day” period in relation to any draft are to the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid before the relevant institution.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) no account is to be taken of any time during which—

(a) if the relevant institution is the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly, that institution is dissolved or is in recess for more than four days;

(b) if the relevant institution is both Houses of Parliament, Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.

(10) In this section, “relevant institution” means—

(a) in the case of an instrument to be made by a Minister of the Crown—

(i) for the purposes of subsections (2), (5) and (8), both Houses of Parliament,

(ii) for the purposes of subsection (3), either House of Parliament,

(iii) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (6), each House of Parliament

(b) in the case of an instrument to be made by Scottish Ministers, the Scottish Parliament;

(c) in the case of an instrument to be made by Welsh Ministers, Senedd Cymru;

(d) in the case of regulations to be made by a Northern Ireland department, the Northern Ireland Assembly;

(e) in the case of an instrument to be made by appropriate authorities acting jointly—

(i) for the purposes of subsections (2), (5) and (8), both Houses of Parliament,

(ii) for the purposes of subsection (3), either House of Parliament,

(iii) for the purposes of subsections (4) and (6), each House of Parliament

and, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly.”—(Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

18:21

Division 120

Ayes: 192

Noes: 299

18:33

More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 1

Power to implement government procurement Chapters

Amendment proposed: 3, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(3A) Where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, regulations under subsection (1) may not be made until the appropriate authority has consulted the relevant Scottish ministers in relation to any matters affecting Scotland.”—(Richard Thomson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:33

Division 121

Ayes: 34

Noes: 300

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the Minister, I should tell the House that we have had reports that Division bells in Norman Shaw South are not working, along with a number of other things. As we anticipate further Divisions this evening, I advise Members in and around Norman Shaw South to look for other means by which they can work out whether a Division is on, including the Annunciators, mobile phones and various other things. If they cannot do that, they should really stay around the main building.

Third Reading

14:30

[Nigel Huddleston]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Our deals with Australia and New Zealand are the first trade agreements in almost 50 years that the UK has negotiated from scratch. Members from across the House have rightly been eager to engage with the Bill, and I thank them all for continuing to do so. I also thank Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee for their work in scrutinising the Bill, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) for their expertise in chairing the Committee.

Members have rightly shown a great interest in the Bill, and I would like to use this opportunity to give the House further assurances. First, Members expressed concerns about the opportunities that the devolved Administrations have had to shape the Bill. I can assure the House that our procurement teams have consistently held roundtables with their counterparts from the devolved Administrations. During negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, they discussed the text of procurement chapters. Discussions on the Bill, and the changes in procurement regulations that it creates, have regularly taken place. Indeed, during negotiations, ministerial and official level engagement on these free trade agreements totals hundreds of hours. That includes 25 meetings with the Australia FTA chief negotiator, specific discussions at the ministerial forum for trade, and senior official conversations on policy content. My officials continue to work closely with their counterparts at the devolved Administrations to address the concerns raised regarding the powers in the Bill. I myself have also had constructive conversations with Ministers from the devolved Administrations. The Government remain committed not to using the concurrent power in the Bill without first consulting the devolved Administrations. I want to stress to the House that the powers are the most logical and efficient way of making minor, technical changes to our procurement regulations.

On Report, we discussed how the Government are committed to providing, for each agreement, a monitoring report every two years, and an evaluation within five years of entry into force. The reports will assess the entirety of the agreements and not limit themselves to the procurement chapters alone.

I would like to say a couple more thank yous: first, to the Bill team at the Department for International Trade—James Copeland, Donald Selmani, Jack Collins, Alex Garcia-Pineiro and Catherine Ajani—as well as the other officials who make up my fantastic team. I would like to thank the parliamentarians who have taken part in this and other debates on the legislation, and of course the International Trade Select Committee, as well as the wonderful staff here in the House.

I also want to thank the Opposition spokespeople for the constructive way in which they have approached scrutiny of the Bill. It was remiss of me earlier not to welcome the new SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) to his role, and I do so now. I also thank his predecessor, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). Who knows, but perhaps under the new leadership we may actually get the SNP to vote in favour of a trade deal. [Interruption.] Indeed, I suspected that may be the case.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the Minister also extend the hope that the Government may accept one of the SNP amendments one of these days?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The key thing is that we estimate that these deals will considerably boost the UK economy and all nations. Businesses in every single constituency will be able to grasp new opportunities from this Bill. It will therefore benefit the whole of the country, and I hope that just perhaps it will get the support of the whole House. I am delighted to commend this Bill to the House.

18:51

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I want to put on record my thanks to all parliamentarians who have contributed to the passage of the Bill. I thank officials at the DIT for their work and all those House staff who have supported the debates both in the Chamber and in Committee.

I also want to put on record my desire to see a deepening of our trade links with our friends in Australia and New Zealand through trade agreements and, indeed, ever closer relationships at all levels. Both countries are close global allies through a common history, and face similar challenges and have similar opportunities in the years to come. I particularly welcome the two very fine Labour Governments they have in office. The next UK Labour Government will work with these free trade deals for the benefit of our people here, and indeed of our friends in Australia and New Zealand.

Specifically on the negotiations, the high commissions of Australia and New Zealand have been remarkably helpful in briefing colleagues as talks progressed, and I am very grateful to them. I was very grateful this morning to meet Mr Don Farrell, the Minister for Trade and Tourism in Australia, to emphasise the Opposition’s desire to deepen that relationship. The Minister mentioned on Report that he was working on the commencement of the deals, but gave no particular date for that. I urge him to set out the commencement dates for both deals.

Our debate on this Bill has not been about the commitment of the Opposition to our deepening relationship with Australia and New Zealand. Rather, it has been about two things. The first is the failure of this Government to achieve the best possible deals for the United Kingdom. The Australia deal is “one-sided”—not my word, but that of the current Prime Minister. In addition:

“The first step is to recognise that the Australia trade deal is not actually a very good deal for the UK… overall, the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

Those are not my words, but those of the former Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), and we can see why he said it. The impact assessment for the Australia deal shows a £94 million hit to our farming, forestry and fishing sectors, and a £225 million hit to our semi-processed food industry. On the New Zealand deal, the Government’s own impact assessment states that:

“part of the gains results from a reallocation of resources away from agriculture, forestry, and fishing”,

which will take a £48 million hit,

“and semi-processed foods”,

which will take a £97 million hit. Perhaps it is no surprise that Australia’s former negotiator at the WTO said:

“I don’t think we have ever done as well as this”.

British produce can be a huge success in new markets, but we recognise the need for a level playing field for our farmers, and it is to a proper plan for our agricultural sector that Ministers must now turn.

On climate change in the Australia deal, the Government failed to include a specific commitment to limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees. On workers’ rights, there was a failure to include commitments to the International Labour Organisation conventions, and there was a lack of substantial concessions on geographical indicators. Unless there is a change of negotiating approach, this weakness in negotiations will have even further consequences for this country in deal after deal.

Secondly, there is the lack of scrutiny. The deals were already signed and agreed before they came before Parliament, so the scope for any amendments, and therefore for meaningful debate, was fatally curtailed. It is impossible to argue that these processes represent scrutiny worthy of the name. The International Trade Committee has rightly criticised the process on the Australia deal and the Government’s premature triggering of the 21-day CRaG process without the full Select Committee consideration being available to Members. When pressed on that, the Government refused to extend the process, and all the while the previous Secretary of State swerved eight invitations—eight—to attend the International Trade Committee.

Perhaps it is no wonder that the Government keep dodging scrutiny, given their record, because as we approach the end of the year, it is a tale of broken promises on trade: no trade deal with the United States; a trade deal with India done by Diwali—promise broken; and 80% of UK trade under free trade agreements by the end of the year—not going to happen. The truth is that Conservative trade policy is a tale of bad deals or no deals at all.

18:56

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

On Third Reading, could I take the opportunity to thank the Clerks for all their help in assisting with amendments throughout the process? I thank those on both Front Benches for their kind words on my recent appointment to my party’s Front Bench as a trade spokesperson. I also thank my group’s researchers, Clorinda Luck and Katie Dominy, for the excellent research they have carried out for us throughout. Of course, I thank my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who led for the Scottish National party group of MPs throughout the previous stages, including in Committee.

The Minister said that he hoped, when we scrutinise future trade deals, that he might be successful in persuading the SNP to back them. I would give him a little bit of hope on that. The SNP is in favour of good trade deals, and we are not in favour of poor trade deals. Trying to help Ministers understand the difference does at times appear a little like Father Ted trying to explain to Father Dougal McGuire the difference between cows that are near and cows that are in fact far away. I would observe that certainly the benefits of this trade deal are very far away indeed.

I was going to comment on the existence of some dispute about whether or not the deal is a good one, but I am afraid that description simply would not do it justice. The Australian and New Zealand Governments certainly think that this is a good trade deal, and it is very telling, is it not, that there are so few individuals outside the ranks of the parliamentary Conservative party who are prepared to say the same from the UK side. I think there is a fundamental reason for that. It is quite clear that the Australian and New Zealand Governments were very focused on securing beneficial outcomes for their economies, whereas the UK Government seemed to be focused primarily on getting a deal as quickly as possible, no matter what that cost.

It is often said that the art of negotiation or diplomacy is the subtle art of letting somebody else get your way, and the Australian and New Zealand Governments certainly allowed the UK very successfully to get their way in the negotiations that took place. It is sad to say, but it will be our consumers, our producers and our economy that will end up picking up the price tag for that in the years to come.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

18:59

Division 122

Ayes: 294

Noes: 46

Bill read the Third time and passed.