Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 9th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my declaration in the register of interests as president of the Institute for Free Trade and an adviser to the UK Board of Trade. I had not been aware prior to this debate that we were also expected to make familial or genetic declarations of interest, but for the record I have a large family in New Zealand, a lot of whom are Labour voters. We are about as distant as we could be geographically, but about as close as we could be in every other respect. Actually, some of them have moved to Australia, as many Kiwis have done, where they can very easily work under the terms of the ANZCERTA deal between the countries. I hope that we will work towards the long-term goal of going deeper than we have with these treaties and try lateralising ANZCERTA. We share extraordinary closeness and interoperability economically.

It is also a huge pleasure to welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Swire, whose wit, effervescence and largeness of spirit will delight our debates and elevate our counsels.

I am asked on occasion whether I have any regrets about Brexit. My chief regret is very easily stated: it is that it was followed by an unpleasant culture war through which prism we still judge almost everything. It is extraordinary that six and a half years after the debate, questions such as this are still being approached fundamentally by where people stood on the original referendum. I am not talking about people who are against trade in general. I am not talking about the Trumpsters or the Corbynites or those such as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has always been very clear that she does not much like free trade. She wants self-sufficient communities, and she sees the exchange of goods as a contingent necessity and a necessary evil—fine. She has been completely consistent in that position in all the interventions she has made in your Lordships’ Chamber.

I would, however, address those who see themselves as generally supporting the liberal order and the free exchange of goods and services. I put this general question to them: would you judge the Bill in the same way if it were a trade deal between the EU and Australia and New Zealand? Would you still be talking about getting swamped by cheap food and so on, or would you be celebrating its provisions?

When my right honourable friend Liam Fox was at the Department for International Trade, he did a series of opinion polls and focus groups and found a fascinating switch in opinion—a polar switch if you like. The kinds of people who had previously been the most in favour—the most open and liberal—in their attitude to commerce had now begun to associate global Britain with people and arguments that they did not like, and were therefore falling back into these protectionist and mercantilist arguments about standing up for our producers. Happily, the opposite was also true: a certain type of UKIP voter who, 10 years ago, would have been grumbling about whether the French should be able to own our energy companies had become much more in favour of international trade.

Let me address the people who are in favour of trade in general; let us leave aside the people who think it is a bad idea. Is there anything in the Bill that you would seriously object to were it not for this ongoing culture war? I will not rehearse in full all its advantages; we have already heard them from my noble friend the Minister, who really knows his onions, as well as his Australian iron ore, his New Zealand lamb and his trade and tariff quotas—rarely has someone been so fitted to the ministerial office by their interests and enthusiasms. The fact that we have the removal of 100% of tariffs is, of course, a very good thing and has attracted more comment than almost everything else, but I would say it is virtually the least important aspect of the Bill.

We are not in the 19th century, when we were mainly interested in foodstuffs and manufactured goods. We could look at the provisions of these treaties on mobility, which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was generous enough to acknowledge as a major positive: the ability of people who speak the same languages and have similar qualifications from, often, the same educational institutions to work without hindrance in each other’s economies. We could look at the provisions on services; we always think of financial services, but there is also shipping, architecture, and the audio-visual sector. We could look at the rules on cross-border data, on investment and, indeed, on procurement; it is extraordinary that the British companies will effectively be treated as if they were Australian or New Zealand companies for large measures of procurement in those countries. This is an extraordinarily successful negotiation. Yes, of course it could go further, and we will all find one or two aspects with which to disagree, but there is no world in which we are worse off after the Bill than before it.

I would like to address some of the criticism that we have heard in this Chamber and outside its walls. Something that we heard from a number of noble Lords was the mercantilist objection. People have said that this is an asymmetric Bill; that we are lowering tariffs faster on this side than on the other side. Good—that is the advantage of trade; it means that you can buy stuff cheaper. I am amazed by how many people think of themselves as free marketeers but, in the post-EU context, struggle or affect to struggle with this point.

I think of the number of times I have been asked, “We are letting in all this Australian beef—what are we getting in return?” The answer is that we are getting the beef: high-quality, nutritious and excellent beef. If you do not want it, do not buy it; that is the basis of how a market system works. The idea that you judge a country by its trade surpluses—that exports are the only thing that matter—was debunked by Adam Smith, but it continues to come back as a zombie argument in every generation.

I have big trade deficits with all the pubs around me in the Hampshire-Berkshire borders—with the Watership Down, Bel and the Dragon, and the White Hart in Overton. Sometimes they engage in dumping; they will say, “Have a free glass of wine if you have a meal on a Monday,” or whatever. Who gets the better end of that deal? There is nothing wrong with getting cheaper imports; that is what drives the economy. It means that people spend less money on the basics so they have more resources to spend on everything else; that is what drives growth.

That brings us, rather neatly, on to the farming or NFU objection. The NFU is in this curious position now where it opposes trade deals with everyone except the European Union. It does not phrase it like that, but that is the practical position it has taken. It does it by deliberately conflating what is allowed in other countries for domestic purposes, and trade deals. We have had a bit of that in the Chamber today: “Australia permits x or y and we do not like it”. Yes, but that does not affect our own standards of what is permissible and may be sold here. No country has ever tried to insist on exporting its own production standards, as opposed to its own food standards. The EU has never done so and, by the way, if we did so—if we consistently said we would not import food unless the production standards were identical—we would not have a free trade agreement with the European Union because we diverge in a number of areas from the EU. No one has ever done that, and it is mischievous to suggest that somehow, that could be done in this case. We are talking about countries with high welfare standards, countries very similar to our own.

I ought to address the hill farms question because it is important. The people who are stewards of our upland areas perform a service for the rest of us that goes well beyond food production. They are looking after a common resource: a beautiful countryside. It is a difficult thing to monetise. We drive past it and it looks very nice. It is what economists would call an externality. If we regard that as an important service, then we should reward them directly for doing so, and that has nothing to do with the levels of tariffs on New Zealand lamb. In some cases, these hill farmers will be getting more than 50%—significantly more in one or two cases—of their income from the Government in direct grants. There is an argument for being more generous, but their income will not be affected by the levels of tariffs we have on Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, when it comes to beef, the beef currently being imported from Ireland and France will instead be imported from the Commonwealth. It will have almost no impact on our domestic producers.

On food miles, the point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others that we should not be trading with distant places, other things being equal, and we should try to do everything as locally as possible. We live in an age where geographical proximity has never mattered less. When the European Union was founded, there was an argument for regional blocs, but advances in refrigeration, the internet and cheap air travel have completely revolutionised the situation. There have been studies of the environmental impact of importing New Zealand lamb. Astonishingly, it turns out that New Zealand lamb eaten in London has a smaller carbon footprint than Welsh lamb eaten in London.

That may seem counterintuitive, but think about it. First, the overwhelming preponderance of carbon production is in the food production phase—on the farm. The things that make the Kiwi farmers efficient, the economies of scale and so on, tend also to mean they use less fertiliser, less heating and so on. By being cheap, they also make themselves more environmentally friendly. The very same thing that noble Lords were complaining about—the imbalance—tends to make things cheaper. In terms of transport, if we think about the size of one of those tankers, the tiny proportion of it take up by one lamb chop, and the efficient route it takes it straight from port to port and then to distribution, that is a very different thing from driving a small number of bits of frozen meat from a remote hill farm. So, even in the transport phase, often, there is no difference. I wonder how much of the argument about food miles is results driven or based on resentment of the fact that we are in this situation at all.

Finally, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone—whether trade deals should be about the environment and democratisation—we all share her concern about those things. Who does not want a cleaner environment and the spread of democracy? But we should be careful of a category error: these are not things to be squeezed into a trade deal as a coda. The more important they are, the more they should be dealt with in their own right with an international treaty. In fact, if I have a criticism of these two deals and of the DfIT’s approach so far, it is that it has been too ready to get into areas that have nothing to do with the removal of trade barriers and to have chapters on indigenous rights in New Zealand, or whatever. That is a perfectly valid and important issue but it does not belong in a trade agreement.

Let us not lose sight of what we stand to gain. Your Lordships’ Chamber is, in a sense, our national institutional memory and it is our duty to recall the things that worked and that raised this country to success. Few things are more clearly in that category than free commerce and free exchange. We invented in theory with the writings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo; we then invented in practice as the first country to remove tariffs, from the 1840s. We did so unilaterally because we understood that the biggest advantage in trade was allowing prices to fall, so that our people were better off and would have more wherewithal to drive economic growth. Let us be worthy of the deeds of our ancestors. Let us pass on their success to our descendants.

UK-India Free Trade Deal

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for that range of questions, which I am sure we will have an opportunity to discuss at great length personally. I would like to reassure noble Lords that I am very much available to all of them for not only the formal process for discussion around trade deals but also as an individual, to make sure that we share the excitement and the opportunities offered to us and I can give noble Lords as much information as I can, in order that we can progress this process.

I would like to answer, most importantly, the first question. I do not want to go into my financial details now, but I am in the process of ensuring that I will not be presented with a conflict of interest in the next few days—hopefully by the end of the month. Of course, if there is any conflict of interest, I assume that will be addressed in the appropriate manner. I am grateful to noble Lords for your indulgence to ensure that this is done properly and effectively, and I hope that you see me as transparent on this point.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend the Minister to the Dispatch Box. If the House will indulge me for a second, I have known the Minister since we were teenagers, and he has always been wise, humble and funny, albeit evincing a curious fondness for the European Union which doubtless will endear him to all sides in this House, including several noble Lords who I see are present here now.

May I ask him about the potential landing zone for the UK-India FTA? There has been a demand from some in Delhi for visa rights equivalent to those for Australia and New Zealand, which I think all sides recognise is not realistic given the disparity in GDP and the disparity in numbers. However, I think that there is space for a more generous visa regime, particularly for business travellers and some work permits, as well as a more generous attitude from the UK when it comes to respecting WTO rules on food, rather than adding on EU additions, in exchange for a lot more market access for our services. Does my noble friend the Minister see the outlines of a deal on that basis?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for highlighting our childhood friendship and exposing me as a Europhile—I am not sure if that was quite so necessary in my opening gambit. But I am a free trader above all things, and I think he encapsulates very well the views of this Government in terms of the benefits that free trade brings.

I would like to make an important clarification, and I am happy to have further discussions with noble Lords about this. The free trade agreement with India does not include sections on immigration; that is a completely separate matter. What we are talking about here is mobility visas for businesspeople, and we require those opportunities as much as Indian companies do. I remind noble Lords, and my noble friends behind me, that Indian companies in this country employ literally tens and tens of thousands of people. The opportunities we have to swap intellectual property—our human capital, which is what we will export to India in exchange for the huge opportunities that it will present to us—insist on, and ensure we should have, an element of toing and froing. That is how we benefit through the brotherhood of trade and the brotherhood of nations. But I must separate those two points; I think that is very important.

Education (Environment and Sustainable Citizenship) Bill [HL]

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, specifically as a professor at the University of Buckingham.

Like so many people who have spoken, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, on the passionate and no-nonsense way in which he introduced this important topic. I particularly thank him for identifying where the cuts would come and where it would be slotted in—it would be part of the existing citizenship teaching. One of the things I have noticed in the short time that I have been in this House is that people are very bad at what we might loosely call fiscal neutrality. It is much easier to ask for things than to identify where the commensurate space is going to be freed up. That is particularly obvious when we talk about financial matters. I hear voices from all sides saying, “Will the Minister spend more on this or that?” Almost never do I hear anyone saying, “And we would have to raise this tax or cut that in order to cover it.”

That is true of curricular questions too. We all have our own ideas about what we would like to see taught in all schools. I agreed very much with what my noble friend Lady Fookes said about a love of nature starting in the local and being rooted in the specific. I see my five year-old and his friends doing nature walks and learning different birdsongs and how to recognise different leaves and wildflowers. I wish I had done that at their age and I wish every child had a chance to do it, but I do not immediately say that it has to be shoehorned into every curriculum, because there are always balancing interests.

We can all think of things that we would like all kids to learn. Maybe these days they should be doing more coding or more basic behavioural psychology, learning to identify false heuristics or those moments when their intuition leads them astray. There are lots of things that would lead them to better life outcomes. But what are we going to cut? Are we going to say, “Let’s not do modern languages because we have such good software these days that does simultaneous interpretation”? Are we going to say, “We don’t really need all the geography that we used to have because you can swipe and find everything out; we don’t need to know what an oxbow lake is these days, because you can find out”? I do not know, but the more that this debate goes on, the more I realise there is a case for humility and modesty on the part of legislators and Governments. We do not have the power, nor does any Secretary of State, to thrust a hand into every classroom and decree exactly what should be taught and learned.

I finish with a plea to the Minister, and to your Lordships more widely, that we should not be too prescriptive. The national curriculum should be kept terse, taut and spare, and we should give maximum discretion and flexibility to teachers and heads, who are in turn answerable to local parents.

Covid-19: Children

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, not just for securing this debate but for introducing it so eloquently. I am sure that all of us, on all sides, were moved by her passion and evident conviction. She is of course right that we have an obligation; it is one of our deepest instincts as a species to want to do things for the young.

I cannot help feeling that these lockdowns have had a real disproportionate impact: they have been asymmetric in their effect, hitting people in the private sector harder than those in the public sector and those in cities harder than those in villages. Above all, they have hit young people harder than middle-aged and elderly people.

I have not been teaching all three of my children during the lockdown, as my noble friend Lady Wyld has. They span or bookend the system: one is in reception and one is in her first year at university. I can see that, in different ways, every one of those cohorts has been negatively impacted, if not for any other reason than the most obvious one, which we are all grimly aware of: time subjectively speeds up as we get older. The 15 months of lockdown are a very different experience when seen through the eyes of my four year-old than through those of his parents’ generation. It is almost difficult for the small children to recall a previous time.

The negative impact on older children relates to a time that cannot be given back. Leaving school is one of the closest things that we have as a society to a collective rite of passage to adulthood—it is not something that you can go back and do a second time round. For two years in a row, that has been permanently lost. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is absolutely right that we should keep a sense of perspective and should not catastrophise: this is not a world war. None the less, from the point of view of the young people themselves, the impact has been pretty awful. If your dream was, say, to captain the school cricket XI and you will never be able to do so, that cannot ever be given back to you.

Young people are quite solipsistic—we all were when we were young. In reading the memoirs of the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I was struck that he talked about being at Oxford during the Second World War and being more upset by failing to be elected president of the Oxford Union than he was by news of the fall of France, which happened to be on the same day. It is a very natural thing for young people to be quite self-centred, and the impact on their lives has been frightful.

Here is the more difficult thing that needs saying. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about ambition, and she was absolutely right. It would be so easy, and I could secure a certain amount of plaudits from all sides, if I just said that we need to spend more money. No one ever shakes their head when you say that—or very few people in this place do. But this is not just about resources; it is about ambition too. I have been shocked by the gap in ambition between some of the schools that have treated the restrictions as a challenge to overcome and some that have treated them, frankly, as an excuse to do less.

We heard the figures quoted about online teaching. According to the Children’s Commissioner, in the summer term of last year, half of secondary school students and 60% of primary school students got no online teaching at all. This is not a question of resources—once you have installed Zoom or Teams, it is effectively free—it is simply a question of ambition. Although there were exceptions, there was, as we heard, some correlation: generally, the schools that had the least online teaching were the ones whose children could least afford that loss. Of course, there were some schools in very deprived areas that rose to the challenge, and there were some well-off schools that did not, but, as a general rule, there was a pretty unpleasant correlation.

I make that point because, if we are now going to try to make up the lost time, it is about not just budgets but ambition. That means that, if we are serious about putting children first, we have to be prepared to give them priority over some competing interests. It might mean a longer school day or shorter school holidays. I am very struck by the way in which the National Education Union, having campaigned furiously against schools coming back at all and having demanded that everything be done online, started campaigning against online tuition the moment that it was conceded, so that a lesson effectively became just a video and then a PDF worksheet. Imagine if, pre-lockdown, you had gone into a classroom and that had been the style of teaching —would any of us have regarded that as adequate?

We do indeed owe a debt to what Kipling called our “angry and defrauded young”, and we—all of us—need to start paying that debt now. That will mean not just decreeing greater resources but putting in the hours as well.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, yes, of course I am concerned about figures showing a lack of representation like that. There have been various initiatives such as the Parker review and the review conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith. We have been working closely in government on the Hampton-Alexander review and are looking at that piece of work. I will note the statistics the noble Lord outlines when we are looking at that review.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, to an extraordinary degree we see racial questions in this country through the prism of the American south—a subculture anomalous within North America, let alone within the wider English-speaking world. We saw that in some of the atrocious and shocking language directed at the authors of this report. One MP posted a picture of a Klansman and the authors were called “Uncle Toms” and worse. These are not words with cultural resonance in this country. Will the Minister join me in thanking the authors for giving up their time from a sheer sense of service and patriotism to produce this forensic and factual paper? Will she add her voice to mine in saying how important it is that these issues are not be left to race professionals, but should allow people like the authors of this report—who have distinguished themselves as scientists, educators, economists, and in all the fields that enrich our national life—to have their voices heard?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, as I have outlined, robust disagreements in this scenario sadly descended into abuse of the commissioners, which is not acceptable. The first recommendation ironically outlines more work needing to be done on online abuse. I am concerned that the treatment of these commissioners may mean we see people less likely to come forward to volunteer for public services, if that is the treatment that they expect.