Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Paul Blomfield

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Speaking so late in the debate has been of real value, as I have been able to listen to so many contributions from both sides of the House. The debate has been a long time coming, perhaps even longer than many Members have alluded to. Its origins go back to the referendum campaign in 2016, when leave campaigners dangled before us the prospect of trade deals with Australia, the US and India as the main reasons for leaving the European Union, making extravagant claims about the economic benefits. The reality has clearly been very different. With a US deal off the agenda as long as the Government continue with their irresponsible approach to the Northern Ireland protocol, and other deals that have been much proclaimed in fact largely rolled over from those we had previously enjoyed as members of the EU, the Australia deal in particular was lauded, not least by herself, as the great achievement of the new Prime Minister during her spell at the Department for International Trade. It is therefore curious that the Government have been so reluctant to engage with Parliament on the discussion and detail of the deal.

When the deal was announced, Members on both sides of the House probed the Government about it. They brought their experience, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) did strikingly in his contribution, and they raised their constituents’ concerns, as others have done today, but they got nowhere. The Australia deal was signed last December and the New Zealand agreement in February. After several months, the Government laid the Australia FTA before Parliament under the CRaG process on 15 June. Ministers promised —as others have made clear, including most recently the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly)—that there would be full opportunity for debate and a chance to shape the deal.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I know I have made a lot of interventions today. One of the reasons for Brexit, of course, was to leave the EU to make trade deals with the likes of New Zealand and Australia, which we are discussing today, but the EU has done a trade deal with New Zealand that is arguably better—[Interruption.] It is better, in fact. And the EU is heading for a deal with Australia as well. That might annoy the Brexiteers, but I really wonder what the future status of these deals might be if at some point the UK rejoins the European Union, or if, after Scotland becomes independent, it rejoins the European Union, and England and Wales trot in behind. Where will these trade deals be then? I do not think the Government have given that point any consideration. The deals are transitory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend echoes the point that I am making.

I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion, but I will make a further point. Trade deals and their implementation must be developed with engagement from business and workers so that they can operate effectively.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s indulgence again. He has made some cracking points in his speech, including one about parliamentary input. We could argue that if we had a debate in Parliament beforehand, it would help our negotiating hand, because the negotiators at the table could tell their opposite numbers, “We won’t get this past Parliament, given the debate that we’ve had.” The involvement of Parliament might actually be—and have been—very helpful in those deals.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point. In an early intervention from the Government Benches—I do not think it was representative of the views of Conservative Members in general—it was said that Parliaments should not be involved in negotiating trade deals. That is clearly nonsense. That sort of early debate in Parliament would have informed and strengthened the negotiating process, and many of the concerns that have been expressed today would have been avoided.

When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will outline his response to the points that have been made, and what steps he feels should be taken to improve the scrutiny of future deals. I hope he would also agree that the powers exercisable under clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill should be constrained by an objective test of necessity, or at least be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

The Australia deal in particular damages our farmers in return for little economic benefit, by the Government’s own measure. It weakens food and animal welfare standards. It falls short on protection for workers. It fails to meet the commitments on climate action that Ministers promised. It is obviously—this is the point that everybody is making—a done deal; it is the new Prime Minister’s flagship agreement. But we need to address its deficiencies and learn the lessons for future FTAs, particularly about the process that we adopt as a Parliament.

I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the approach that we need to look at, which is used by other countries. It would provide the engagement that the Chair of the International Trade Committee talks about at an early stage of the process, and it would provide genuine involvement as the deal is secured. It would ensure not only that we have effective parliamentary scrutiny, but that we exercise parliamentary sovereignty, as we should.

Refugee Family Reunion

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Paul Blomfield

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that 18 to 24 June is Refugee Week; further notes that many families throughout the world have been torn apart by war and persecution; welcomes the fact that the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No.2) Bill was given its Second Reading without opposition on 16 March 2018; and calls on the Government to support the provisions of that Bill.

It is a great privilege and pleasure to open the debate. I thank its co-sponsors, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). Refugee Week is an important time at which to consider these issues and, indeed, the contribution that refugees make to societies around the world, although many left their own lands in very difficult circumstances. Many, of course, did not want to leave, and many now wish to return home but, sadly, will not realise that dream.

Last night, an event was held at Speaker’s House to mark Refugee Week. Indeed, yesterday was World Refugee Day. It was a fantastic event. The National Theatre, in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, organised a number of sketches and another performances. The aim was to convey in a more engaging manner, and sometimes with humour, the feelings of refugees and the difficulties that they experience, and the choice that they have had to make to flee their homelands. Celebrities were present, including the actors David Morrissey, Cate Blanchett and Colin Firth—“Colin”, as he is now known to Nikita Harkin from my office, as she had to accompany him to Speaker’s House. It was great to see that people who were probably some of the most fortunate in our global village had the empathy, the social responsibility and the simple concern to give of their time to press the issues of refugees, in particular as UNHCR special ambassadors.

A great point was made by the right hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), whom Members may well know better as Mr Speaker himself. He observed that the presence of celebrities was invigorating, but also reminded people that there was a “we” as well as a “me” when it came to the issue of refugees in our world. Such events are important, as are debates like this. I know that this debate will be watched by not just many people who work with refugees, but refugees themselves who are looking for hope and some changes, and perhaps some warm words from the Government, which I am sure will come at some stage.

An unprecedented number of people—68.5 million—have been forced to flee from their homes, and 22.5 million of them have become refugees. Amazingly, 50% of those 22.5 million are under the age of 18. I have become more aware of this subject as a result of my private Member’s Bill, the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill, which had its Second Reading on 16 March. The more one delves into the subject, the more one finds out, although I do not think that anyone—even a refugee—can really be an expert, because everyone has a different story.

The refugees who may be watching the debate should know that they are definitely not alone, and I know that from the organisations that worked on my Bill with me. Jon Featonby of the Red Cross has been fantastic. I am also grateful to James Bulman and Laura Padoan of the UNHCR, Seb Klier of the Refugee Council, Lucy Wake of Amnesty International, and Sam Nadel of Oxfam.

I have mentioned those people as individuals, and also to gain further recognition for their groups. The Red Cross, the UNHCR, the Refugee Council, Amnesty and Oxfam are not just abstract bodies; they are bodies that contain dedicated people who are working very hard to make the lives of others better. I consider that laudable. I wish that I had the abilities, and perhaps the time and the inclination, to do the same. Sometimes in life one thinks to oneself, “There are definitely people who are doing better things with their lives than I am with mine.”

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the people who are making that contribution, but does he recognise that throughout the country, in civil society, a huge body of people are making a contribution in every one of our towns and cities? He will know, I think, that Sheffield was the country’s first city of sanctuary, making the positive statement that we welcome those who flee persecution and war. Does he agree that that sanctuary movement, which has now been taken up by many other towns, can make a very positive statement to refugees?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

That is fantastic, and Sheffield can be very proud. Becoming the first city of sanctuary is one of the proudest badges that any city can wear, and it is something for all other towns and cities to emulate. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the contribution is not made just by organisations, as is clear when we drill down further in society. I think that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who was present for my Bill’s Second Reading on 16 March, is very pleased by my mentions of her city. The tabloid newspapers often tell us that there is overcrowding in the south-east, or a lack of welcome for refugees, but in fact the people of Canterbury have been very welcoming, which is a great credit to them. However, I am sure that they are not alone. The hon. Gentleman has made a great point about the city of Sheffield. Many people—in charity shops, for instance—are doing whatever they can to make a better life for the refugees who come to the United Kingdom, and that is very welcome.