Trade and Agriculture Commission: Role in International Trade Deals

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell.

I must congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall, and I commend his opening speech, which was excellent—laid out with great clarity and, of course, with great knowledge, as befits his position as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Also made clear was his palpable exasperation with the Government’s approach to the problem. He described himself as a man of limitless patience, but that patience has run out, and we all very much hear that.

I want to mention the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), with whom I have had the pleasure of serving on several Committees and who spoke—as always, with great passion and great clarity—about the need for core standards to be established, which is an important point. She referenced the “National Food Strategy”, which I hope will not join other papers that have been submitted to this Government—I assume they are in a pile somewhere, being roundly ignored.

I must commend the speech made by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), which was politically brave, I have to say, but welcome. He, too, made some excellent points.

Several Members referenced the Government’s failure to follow through the promises made during consideration of the Trade Bill and the Agriculture Bill. The TAC—version 1 and version 2—was promised to allay fear on the part of farmers, who could see that Brexit was about to destroy their businesses. The commission was supposed to be in place before any trade deal was signed. It was supposed to scrutinise such deals in advance. Setting it up was one of the very few concessions that the Government made during the passage of the Agriculture and Trade Bills as the clamour from farmers and others in the food and drink sectors—desperately concerned at the impact the new trade deals would have on their livelihoods—and the increasing cries from Tory Back Benchers, who were feeling the heat from their constituents, grew ever louder. It is still not there, though.

The Secretary of State for International Trade sprinted to the finish line and the Aus-UK trade deal in principle is in place. That has provided a blueprint for future agreements, but the Government seem set on a path that ignores Parliament, the devolved Administrations, and businesses and individuals from those sectors.

Let us recall the first announcement of a TAC by the Secretaries of State for International Trade and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It sounded impressive until we realised that it was only a temporary set-up and had no real power to do anything but wag its collective finger at Ministers. Indeed, as many people have pointed out, we are still waiting for a Government response to its first report—its first and only report. As I pointed out during the debates on the Trade Bill, not only was the temporary TAC not allowed any real power or influence over the outcomes of trade deals, but the insult was compounded by the installing on the commission of members such as the former lobbyist and free trade enthusiast—and perhaps even a posh man in a suit—Shanker Singham, who is on the record as arguing that we should accept chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef and genetically modified crops from the US. He recently described the TAC as a body

“whose primary focus was to study the interaction between trade and agricultural policy issues.”

So, “to study the interaction”—it is not quite the proactive and influential organisation the Government implied it would be.

Putting wolves in sheep’s clothing among a group of people genuinely committed to protecting livelihoods and standards in agriculture and in our enormously valuable food and drink sectors seems deeply cynical. The question I asked then was whether the commission was there to provide safeguards for our food standards or just to draw some sort of veil of decency over the Government’s indecent position on all this, and I am afraid we know the answer to that. There was a power struggle between the free trade hawks in the Department for International Trade and the poor wee lambs in DEFRA, and it is clear which Department won. The EFRA Secretary should be hanging his head in shame—well, someone should, as it certainly will not be the Secretary of State for International Trade, who seems remarkably proud of the part she is playing in all this.

Here we are, some months down the track and after the trade deal has been agreed in principle with Australia, and we are none the wiser as to who will make up the new statutory version of the TAC, which will supposedly have a more technical focus. Will it, too, be full of free trade hawks, who might, behind the scenes, seek to water down any recommendations that might at least maintain protections? Will the UK Board of Trade, boasting members such as Lord Hannan and former Aussie PM Tony Abbott—ferociously pro free trade, the pair of them—which just yesterday came out strongly against a proposal for a carbon border adjustment tax that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reportedly considering, stamp all over the commission’s best efforts in its single-minded support of the freest of trade?

[Anthony Mangnall]

The hon. Lady is making a speech of some sort, but I am not entirely sure that the commission has been taken over by one person who has free trade ideals; it has 14 other members. This is not particularly fair. If she wants diversity on the commission, diversity should indeed be there. Does she not agree? We cannot have everyone touting the same opinion, which would be fairly pointless.

[Deidre Brock]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examine the background of such people as Lord Hannan and Tony Abbott and figure out whether they are genuinely fit to be on the trade board. I do not believe they are. It is always good to be patronised by posh men in suits, Ms Bardell.

The International Trade Secretary said that the commission was there merely to advise on future strategy, which suggests, alarmingly, that the UK’s future trade policy will in fact be based purely on the judgment of Ministers, with no independent scrutiny until the deals are done and the hands shaken. So much for taking back control. In contrast, in the EU there is a rigorous process of consultation with industry, following a mandate approved by the EU27, and ratification by the EU27 and the European Parliament. Briefings are also provided for the institutions throughout negotiations. In the UK, we will have, in effect, trade policy by decree, with no proper scrutinising role for the UK Parliament. Thinking back to all the Brexiters’ vilification of faceless EU bureaucrats, I find that extraordinary.

It is clear that industry and Parliament were promised the TAC for the sake of quiet ministerial lives and to ward off what would have been, for the Brexiter parliamentarians particularly, some uncomfortable defeats. I am exasperated not with the NFUs, and certainly not with the businesses and individuals who were taken in by those Government promises, but with the many Conservative MPs who chose, outwardly at least, to trust the Government and their blandishments, despite their dismal track record. I leave aside, of course, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, others who have spoken in today’s debate and others who have spoken in the Chamber during previous debates.

The TAC was a performance designed to fool constituents into thinking that something was actually being achieved, but it was nothing more than a fig leaf to cover the exposure of a successful industry to deeply unfair international competition.

The unfortunate thing for us is that, despite the disproportionate importance to our country’s economy of agriculture, fishing and the food and drinks sector, and the likely impact on Scotland’s fragile rural and coastal economies, the devolved Administrations will get little or no say in trade deals. In fact, we have seen determined efforts by the UK Government to block any involvement of the devolved Administrations. That is in marked contrast to, say, the territories and provinces of Canada, whose deep understanding of the needs of their lands and peoples is acknowledged and respected by the federal Government and which play considerable roles in trade deal negotiations.

Another disastrous situation was brought about by the UK Government: when the devolved Administrations want to stop inferior products being shipped via England to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, thanks to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, batted through Parliament by the Government, they will not be able to do so.

I have little time left to speak, unfortunately. I would have liked to mention in more detail the NFU Cymru rep who warned, in front of the Welsh Affairs Committee, that the Australia agreement could set the bar for future trade deals. He set out the clear differences between UK and Australian products. Questions raised by the NFU in May have not yet been answered by the Government—for instance, where is the detailed economic assessment of the cumulative impact on domestic UK agriculture of all the UK’s current and future free trade agreements? It is difficult to believe that any responsible Government would jump into such agreements without, at the very least, such measures being in place.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that, although chuntering and interrupting might be acceptable in some parts of the parliamentary establishment, under my chairship and in this Chamber they are not. If Members choose to give way, they choose to give way; if they do not, please be courteous and respect colleagues. There are members of the public watching, and we have to prove to them that we are a respectable bunch. I call Bill Esterson.

Agricultural Exports from Australia: Tariffs

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend, not least for his expertise in this sector. The role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is set out in statute in both the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Trade Act 2021. We are expecting it to be set up soon, and we also have to respond to the report from the original Trade and Agriculture Commission set up last summer. I would expect it to be a panel of experts who will provide this Parliament—both Houses—with expert insight into the terms of this or any other free trade agreement, particularly in relation to agriculture and standards.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]]

Does the Minister appreciate that doing this deal with Australia would wreck the UK’s reputation on environmental issues, since Australia has the highest rate of deforestation in the OECD, driven by the livestock industry, and Australian agriculture uses 71 highly hazardous substances that are banned in the UK, including neonicotinoids and hormone injections for beef? Does he think losing that reputation is a price worth paying for this trade deal?

[Greg Hands]

I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s question, and again I repeat the fact that the SNP has never supported any trade deal so I am slightly doubtful that whatever reassurances I give her will make her change her mind. However, I say again that there will be no compromise on the UK’s food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards in relation to this or any other free trade agreement. Hormone-injected beef will not be allowed into this country. It is not allowed into this country today; our standards will be unchanged and it will not be allowed in the future. Australia does sell us beef and lamb, however, and I expect that will continue under this agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

What discussions she plans to have with her EU counterparts on developing the relationship on services.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

What discussions she plans to have with her EU counterparts on developing the relationship on services.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

What discussions she plans to have with her EU counterparts on developing the relationship on services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

The memorandum of understanding on financial services ensures financial stability and consumer protection, and we look forward to that being negotiated. I was not surprised by this question, but I was a little bit surprised that the hon. Gentleman was the one asking it. It is not that long ago that he said:

“Leaving the European Union without a deal in place is an act of economic self-harm”.

But that is precisely what he voted for on 30 December.

[Deidre Brock [V]]

The Prime Minister admitted that the deal is not up to the job on trade and services, and Brussels has made it clear that access will be restricted further if there is divergence from the EU’s standards. Is it the Government’s intention to give up access to that market, or will the UK remain wedded to the EU’s regulatory framework?

[Greg Hands]

I have long experience in this space, having been a Treasury Minister, and there are of course advantages to the UK being able to set its own regulatory regime for financial services as the biggest financial services marketplace in Europe. I think the hon. Lady is wrong to characterise the treaty—she voted in favour of no deal—as not being good for services. There are good provisions on business travellers, excellent provisions on legal services, and very, very good provisions on digital and data. I am a little bit surprised that she is not more supportive of the deal.

Trade Bill

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in particular to SNP amendment 10 and new clause 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I cannot quite work out whether the Government have not noticed the potential problems with the quality of imported foods or whether they just do not care. Frankly, having listened to this debate, I think it is the latter.

We hear so many platitudes, but when the chance to do something concrete came up during the Agriculture Bill, Ministers turned it down. Yes, pressures from farmers after that led to a commission to advise on a food imports framework of sorts. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is no longer in his place, said its membership provided comfort to his farmers. That commission, though, has among its members Shanker Singham, a former lobbyist and favourite of various Ministers who is on record arguing that we should accept chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef and genetically modified crops from the US.

Mr Singham is not the only representative of the Institute of Economic Affairs on the commission; Lockwood Smith is also part of the IEA. That is important because the IEA is in favour of a hard Brexit and of lowering food and environmental standards to satisfy countries such as the US, China and India in trade deals. We know that because it published a paper on it in 2018 and got censured by the Charity Commission for its trouble.

Then there is the chair of the commission, Tim Smith, a former Tesco employee who said shortly after he was appointed that concerns about food standards were alarmist. I was alerted to that by the Department for International Trade; astonishingly, its Twitter account was used to publicise a link to the article. There are some who do not think the commission is there to provide safeguards for our food standards. They worry it is there to draw a veil of decency over the indecency of the Government’s position.

We were told during the Agriculture Bill that the proper place for provisions on the quality of imported food would be the Trade Bill, yet here we are debating the Trade Bill and the Government are intent on throwing those safeguards out of the window rather than enshrining them in legislation. Those are actions in bad faith and they should not be allowed to stand.

In Committee, the Minister said that Food Standards Scotland and the English Food Standards Agency will ensure that food imports comply with our standards. How? How will they do that? Will they have teams inspecting the production chains in other countries, as the EU does? How will the animal husbandry and production standards of other nations be monitored to prevent unsuitable food from ending up on our plates?

The White Paper on an internal UK market shows that the Government have no intention of letting Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland do anything to protect their people. Under those plans, lower standards introduced by England’s Government will have to be swallowed by the rest of us. Frankly, I do not fancy swallowing anything they offer.

Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change makes it clear in his response to the White Paper that he considers it a power grab from the devolved Administrations for the purpose of negotiating low-standard international trade deals. The Minister underlined that when he said that involving the devolved Administrations in trade deals would be “constitutionally inappropriate”. I disagree.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I start by declaring an interest: my wife’s family are farmers. I have listened carefully to the debate and studied all the amendments, and I feel that there has been significant mission creep among the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) said a few moments ago, people seem to have forgotten what the Bill is actually about. The Bill is about those all-important continuity trade agreements that are vital for British farmers, British exporting businesses and the United Kingdom as a whole. The Bill categorically is not about new free trade deals, important as those are—and I am delighted to see colleagues from the Department for International Trade busy negotiating them.

When it comes to scrutiny, I very much welcome everything that my right hon. Friend the Minister said in opening the debate about the lengths to which the Government have gone to ensure that differences in any continuity agreements are laid before Parliament and how, likewise, where trade deals are likely to be different—where the Government have an ambition to get a better deal, such as with Japan—greater lengths are taken.

On farming, agriculture and our food standards, I cannot put it better than my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). He pointed out to this House that, as we leave the European Union, those all-important food standards will be transferred from EU law into British law, and the only way that that law could be changed is by this House. So it is a false argument to suggest that there needs to be an amendment to this Bill to change fundamentally what this Bill is about to secure the standards that the Prime Minister has committed to and that were in the manifesto that I and all Members on the Government side of the House stood on. My right hon. Friend the Minister has repeated that on many occasions, as indeed did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who did so much to get this Bill back before the House of Commons.

When I heard the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who is not now in his place, talk about this earlier, I felt he had a very one-sided view of the argument, in that it was all about protectionism and the domestic market. Of course, the domestic market is important to all our farmers, but there are opportunities for international trade out there, such as the lifting of the ban on British beef into America, which is worth £66 million. Through trade, our farming can be assured and prosperous for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady asks a good question. One important thing that we will learn from this crisis is the importance of the robustness of supply chains. Currently, most of the focus is obviously on medical supplies, but that will extend more broadly. We need to make sure that we have diverse sources of supply, that the supply chains that ensue are robust, and that we have choice and diversity in respect of where we procure our goods from.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

18. What assessment she has made of the effect of trade barriers to UK exports on the UK’s contribution to the global economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the negative impact of trade barriers. OECD analysis shows that cutting tariffs and addressing unnecessary costs associated with non-tariff measures could increase trade by more than 20% among G20 economies. We are working to remove barriers for UK exporters around the world—from helping British beef and lamb to export in Japan to obtaining geographic protection for Scotch whisky in Indonesia.

[Deidre Brock [V]]

The most recent WTO review saw G20 economies implement 28 new trade-restrictive measures, estimated to cover around $460 billion of trade, and import-restrictive measures in force for the period January-October 2019 are now estimated to cover $1.6 trillion, suggesting that import restrictions have continued to grow. It is obvious that we need resilience in our economies, but does the Minister agree that that cannot be an excuse to engage in economic protectionism or simply close down value chains?

[Graham Stuart]

I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady; she is absolutely right. Pre-covid, over the past decade, perhaps since the financial crash, there has been an increase in the number of trade barriers that have been erected, which is why, as an independent nation once again, we are so determined to champion free trade and to use the WTO and the other international fora referred to by colleagues to make sure that we make that case. It will lead to prosperity for all.

No-deal Brexit: Schedule of Tariffs

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

The issue of the refineries and how tariffs may have an impact there has been discussed and continues to be looked at closely at the heart of government. Those representations are having an impact and are being listened to carefully.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, the competing claims of Edinburgh, Strangford and West Dunbartonshire. What a taxing choice. I call Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister consider that these new tariffs will be good for Scottish businesses? And how?

[Mr Speaker]

A splendidly succinct question—you can come again!

US Tariffs: Scotch Whisky

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will continue to make representations. As I have said, the Prime Minister follows proceedings in this House very closely, and I will make sure that he is aware of the strength of feeling across the House on this issue and of how important the House feels it will be for the Prime Minister to convey this message very strongly to the President on the next occasion on which they speak. I am sure that will be soon. I was going to say this to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), but as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) is listening very politely, I will say it to him: we should all be doing everything we can. The party in which the hon. Gentleman serves serves in government in Scotland, and the First Minister of Scotland herself will have a role to play in this. We must all pull on the rope together to deliver the result we want—that is, no imposition of these tariffs, which would be so damaging to the sector, in 10 days’ time.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

We know US trade groups have been pressing for any future trade deals with the UK to drop current EU requirements on the ageing of whisky so that their younger products can be labelled and sold as some sort of equivalent. How concerned is the Minister that this is just the opening shot in what will be a determined effort by the US to destroy the protections around this iconic Scottish product?

[Conor Burns]

As I said before, we view this round of tariffs as wrong, ungrounded and without foundation. I do not share the hon. Lady’s overall concern. It is very important to remember that this goes beyond Scottish whisky—there are other sectors, such as cheese, clothing and so on that are caught in the crossfire of an almost ancient dispute, which goes back to 2004. They should not be, and we will do everything we can to try to persuade the United States that this is the wrong course of action and of the damage it will do to small producers, who are exactly the sort of people for whom the President says he wants to stand up in the United States. I hope that we can persuade him to protect those people here in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Vicky Ford—not here.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to tackle climate change through trade policy.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to tackle climate change through trade policy.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)]

The UK has long supported the promotion of our values globally, including ambitious global action to tackle climate change, and this will continue. We are exploring all options in the design of future trade policy, including how to tackle climate change. We are working to realise the potential for low-carbon exports from the UK and supporting UK jobs.

[Deidre Brock]

While the Department for International Development has a clear strategy for promoting low-carbon development in low-income countries, fossil fuels made up a shocking 99.4% of UK Export Finance’s energy support to low and middle-income countries in the last financial year. Does the Secretary of State agree with the International Development Committee’s finding that his Department’s spending is

“damaging the coherence of the Government’s approach to combating climate change”,

and what steps has he taken to ensure a more joined-up approach among his Cabinet colleagues?

[George Hollingbery]

The UK has an enviable record of success in decarbonisation. A target will be agreed of an 80% reduction by 2050; renewable capacity is up four times since 2010; and there will be £10 billion in annual support by 2021. Expertise is being built in offshore, smart energy, sustainable construction, precision agriculture, green finance, electric vehicles and so on. As I travel around the world, I meet many representatives from developing countries who are interested in all these technologies. Our trade policy is focused absolutely on ensuring that our exporters are set up to spread this green technology around the world. UKEF will play its part in funding this global revolution. In the short term, I have no doubt that some fossil fuel investments will be made, but as we progress that will transform into low-carbon development.

Future Free Trade Agreements

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

No. The countries in the CPTPP have been quite clear that they want to finish the ratification process for the 11 countries that are already in the partnership before they consider potential new entrant countries. They have yet to decide whether they want to consider individual countries or to group countries in a timetable for accession. We have simply made it clear that we have an ambition to join the partnership. We have a long way to go in determining what that would look like in respect of both timescale and content.

I am delighted to report that both Australia and New Zealand have shown strong political will to negotiate such agreements. Australia is the 13th largest global economy and has been a flourishing nation in recent times, with an excellent record on GDP growth, and trade already worth some £15 billion per year.

The UK is the second largest investor in Australia while Britain is the second largest destination for Australian overseas investment. Our countries established the UK-Australia trade working group in September 2016 and since that time it has met regularly to lay the foundations for future FTA negotiations in addition to discussing wider trade issues of shared interest. I believe that we can look forward to those discussions with confidence.

Similarly, New Zealand and the United Kingdom enjoy extremely close economic ties. The UK is New Zealand’s largest export market in the European Union. New Zealand exports more goods to the UK than to Germany, France and Italy combined. We are also the largest EU investor in New Zealand. The UK and New Zealand are both ranked in the top 10 countries for ease of doing business and we already boast a strong trade relationship, with UK-New Zealand trade worth around £2.8 billion.

The UK-New Zealand trade policy dialogue has been working since September 2016 to determine how we further strengthen our trade and investment relationship and to prepare the groundwork for the launch of bilateral FTA negotiations. An FTA with New Zealand would be an opportunity to set an ambitious precedent for future agreements and to build our relationship with a key ally in multilateral forums. It will give us the opportunity to pioneer modern and enduring trade rules, to update the global rulebook and to identify where we can collaborate to promote free, fair, rules-based trade in markets around the world.

Free trade agreements also give the United Kingdom the opportunity to design new modern trading rules that play to our unique strengths. To ensure that any future FTA works for the whole of the UK, the Government have sought views from a broad range of stakeholders from all parts of the UK. The Government’s proposal, published last year, set out our approach to pursuing new trade agreements collaboratively by engaging the widest range of stakeholder groups. We are committed to an inclusive and transparent trade policy that benefits the whole of the UK.

We are also creating a new strategic trade advisory group, which will advise Department of International Trade Ministers and trade negotiators on trade policy as we move forward. The group will be co-chaired by the Minister for Trade Policy and we are now finalising the selection process for membership. I will shortly write to the successful candidates, with an announcement to follow. This group is composed of core members, representing a diverse range of interests and expertise, drawn from different groups—from business and the trade unions to consumers and non-governmental organisations among others—but all with an interest in our future trade policy and its impact on the full spectrum of issues facing the UK, from the workplace to consumer choice and the environment. The membership of this group, with its balance of interests and representation from across the UK, is designed to allow the Government to harness advice, insight and evidence from a cross section of experienced voices already actively involved in trade-related issues.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Let me go back to the issues around Australia—as an Australian this area is of particular interest to me. The Japan-Australia economic partnership agreement took seven years from start to finish to establish. How long does the Secretary of State estimate it will take to establish a similar agreement with Australia?

[Dr Fox]

At the other end of the scale, the Australia-US trade agreement was an extremely short one to negotiate. So where there are compatible economies, it is possible to do that. I spoke to my Australian counterpart yesterday, and we hope that, given the openness of our economies and their compatibility in terms of shape, we will be able to conclude an agreement as soon as possible. There is no way, in advance of a negotiation, to say how long it will take. At the beginning of this process, our Australian colleagues are likely to be involved in a general election, which may mean that it will be slightly later when we can get into the process, but I hope to be able to conduct bipartisan negotiations with them to ensure that we can make progress as quickly as possible, which is in our mutual interest.

On 20 July 2018, we launched four online public consultations, providing the public with an opportunity to give their views on potential future trade agreements with the US, Australia and New Zealand and on accession to the CPTPP. All four consultations were open for 14 weeks—two weeks longer than the EU’s trade agreement consultations—and collectively attracted more than 600,000 responses, making it one of the largest consultation exercises ever run by the UK Government.

Alongside the consultations, we ran 12 events across the different regions and nations of the UK to seek their views on how prospective trade agreements could support prosperity and growth. The evidence provided in the responses to those consultations will inform the Government’s overall approach to our future trading relationship with these countries, including our approach to negotiating any trade agreements. Decisions made as a result of the consultations will be published before potential negotiations start.

This is the first time that the United Kingdom has consulted on potential future trade agreements independently. The volume of responses across all four consultations, run simultaneously, means that it is only right that we take time to consider the responses and the views of this House in detail. While there are many other markets that the UK will look to for new agreements, our shared values and our strength of trade with the US, Australia and New Zealand make them the right places on which to focus our initial attention, alongside our interest in potentially negotiating accession to the CPTPP.

Let me turn to future scrutiny of our free trade agreements—a topic that has received much discussion in both Houses, including through the inquiry co-ordinated by the International Trade Committee and the published response.

EU Trade Agreements: Replication

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Those of us who have been involved in this process from the beginning will remember that it was initially known as transitional adoption—that is, we would adopt the EU agreement with a view to moving on to a more bespoke agreement later. That is still our aim. For example, in our discussions with the Swiss Government at signature on Monday, we talked about our ambitions to enhance that agreement once Britain has left the EU. Our aim for the moment is continuity; ambition comes later.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The UK Government would probably leave DFS with a full-price sofa. Ministers have already indicated that giving up our protected geographical indicators would be a price worth paying for trade deals, wilfully damaging Scotland’s competitiveness in world markets. What guaranteed protections will the Secretary of State’s trade deals offer Scotland’s precious food and drink sector to compensate?

[Dr Fox]

That is so fundamentally wrong. The Government have said nothing of the sort about geographical indicators. We regard them as having the highest importance, not least in Scotland. On that point, I congratulate Scotch whisky on reaching almost £5 billion of exports last year—exports that we are very keen to protect.