Australia and New Zealand Trade Deals

Debate between Deidre Brock and Anthony Mangnall

Monday 14th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I did battle against him in 2017, and he sent me running. I am pleased to be in the Chamber with him to discuss something on which we are of one heart and one mind.

I am partly here as a member of the International Trade Committee. Our Chair appears to have thrown his toys out of the pram and has not come to debate the very thing that he has asked about for the last 18 months. The Committee has done a huge amount of work over the two and a half years in which I have been a member. We have produced reports on scrutiny, on the New Zealand and Australia agreements, on UK Export Finance, on inward foreign direct investment and on digital trade and data. The reason for these reports is because we are signing trade deals at a rapid rate of knots, not too fast, as the Opposition might paint the picture, but steady progress. We are signing deals that will be of huge benefit to the UK service economy, to our producers, to British consumers and to the British public, and we should talk more about that.

The International Trade Committee is attempting to keep up with the Government’s ambitious programme to ensure that we are able to produce reports for this House. I agree with every point raised by the right hon. Gentleman on scrutiny. We have to have a conversation in this Chamber about scrutiny, which is not to be feared. If anything, the expertise in this House would be of huge benefit to both the Government and the Department for International Trade. The whole point of the International Trade Committee’s work is to be a critical friend by considering what works and what does not work, to try to strengthen the Government’s position through our reports and engagement sessions, and by consulting widely with experts across the United Kingdom.

We all wish to see the United Kingdom strike the most effective trade deals, although that might not be the case for SNP Members, who do not seem to support any trade deals at any time. I was accused of having ample dexterity in saying that I want to see scrutiny, but the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who is no longer in his place, started his speech by saying he is pro-free trade. I have never before heard the SNP give us such a line, because it is clearly not the case. The SNP says it wants to be part of the EU, but leaving the Union of the United Kingdom is the only thing that will cause an economic catastrophe for Scotland.

I welcome the opportunity of this debate to talk about the Australia and New Zealand trade deals. So often in this country we talk about import impacts rather than export opportunities, of which I believe there are many. We must talk them up. We hear the Opposition highlight that Members and Ministers of the Australian Parliament have saluted their trade deal, suggesting that we have got the wrong end of the stick and that Australia has got the best side of this deal. If the Opposition started promoting the positive elements of this trade agreement, we might find that people have a little faith in it. Scratch the surface of the trade agreement, and we will find there are huge benefits.

The International Trade Committee’s most recent report made five recommendations. I asked the shadow Minister about the role of CRaG, which was introduced by the Labour Government in 2010. We need to have an open and frank cross-party discussion about what new system we might be able to put in place. If we are not going to use the mechanism that has been promised, we might as well consider an alternative measure. I ask the Government, with the greatest respect, if we are to ignore having a votable motion, could we at least have general debates during the CRaG process so that we can talk about it before the deal is ratified? That would send a positive message to all of us who return to our constituencies to talk to farmers and businesses that might be concerned. That, at least, would be a simple thing to put forward.

We must also ensure that there is scrutiny and that Ministers turn up on time to the Trade Committee. We have had problems. However, as has been said, the Front-Bench team we have in the Department for International Trade is truly excellent. I have worked with a number of them on a number of occasions and it is reassuring to know that they take these points seriously. I have those conversations with them both in public and in private.

There is a valid point to be made on ensuring that Departments are joined up when it comes to trade deals. That was not always the case. The Committee certainly did not feel it was during the Australia negotiations. It was, however, better on the New Zealand negotiations. On the point about having a joined-up negotiating objective as a one-size-fits-all, I am less than persuaded by that. We have to be flexible in looking at the needs of each and every trade deal we end up signing.

We need to look at where the Australia trade agreement benefits us. As the Minister for Trade Policy, who is no longer in his place, said, 82% of our workforce and 80% of GDP are in financial services. That is where this deal strikes incredibly well and effectively. We will have greater access—more than ever before—to Australian markets. From architecture to law to financial services, we will be on an equal footing. That could increase UK service exports to Australia by £5 billion. Additionally, it cuts the bureaucracy that so many small businesses have been frustrated about.

Mobility offers the opportunity to support economic growth and recovery, and opportunities for people in Australia and people in the UK. It is worth noting that, under the new travel arrangements, which are based on reciprocity, there will be a youth mobility scheme; an innovation and early careers scheme; an exchange pilot; and a working holidaymaker initiative. I go back to what the right hon. Member for Warley said: the purpose is that there will be side initiatives where we can look at how to expand this. Trade deals, once signed, are not static; they evolve over time. We must remind ourselves that what was signed recently does not necessarily have to be the trade deal that we live with for the rest of our lives. We can steadily improve the deals and must look to do so. We should certainly be heading in that direction when it comes to the visa arrangement and shared professional qualifications.

[Deidre Brock]

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that that is in any way compensation for the loss of freedom of movement, and of the workers that we were getting from Europe, as a result of the disastrous Brexit deal his Government have negotiated?

[Anthony Mangnall]

We have a trade and co-operation agreement, a free trade agreement, with the EU, which is important to note—and which the hon. Member voted against. We also have a significant amount of opportunity to welcome people. The whole point is about having control. If we are going to sign up to new relationships with countries around the world, we want to be able to do so through the Commonwealth and through countries that have shared ideas and views about the world, and we should welcome that.

A point was made by a Member from Wales, whose constituency I cannot remember off the top of my head, about our inability to bid into Australian government contracts. I am afraid to say that that is incorrect. Within the terms of the Australian trade agreement, businesses in the UK will be able to bid into Australian government contracts worth up to £10 billion a year. That is the most extensive expansion the Australians have ever agreed in any free trade agreement in the world.

On the point about farming, I bow to the knowledge and experience of the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), but I was surprised that we did not hear more about the Trade and Agriculture Commission that we set up. I hope that that might be the vehicle by which we can ensure better scrutiny, and better enhancements and support for farming. We need to look at that issue. We have certainly had extensive negotiations in the Trade Committee about how we can use that.

Trade and Agriculture Commission: Role in International Trade Deals

Debate between Deidre Brock and Anthony Mangnall

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.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Deidre Brock and Anthony Mangnall

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

My inbox has been full of messages from constituents looking for food standards to be maintained. I know from conversations with colleagues that their inboxes have been filled, too, and we know from comments that we have heard already today that other Members have had similar experiences. If Ministers will not protect those standards in legislation simply because it is the right thing to do, perhaps they will consider doing it because there is huge public pressure for it.

Throughout the passage of this Bill and in other debates, we have never been given an adequate reason why the Government are so determined to keep food standards off the face of legislation. We were told that they should not be in this Bill but in the Trade Bill; come the Trade Bill, we were told that they should not be there but somewhere else. We have been told to trust the Government to deliver, and that future deals could be scrutinised by Members. Indeed, we have just heard that from the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

We are always being told, “Not here, not now,” but we have never been told why exactly the Government are so opposed to putting food protection in legislation. The EU manages it and other countries manage it, so why not the UK, particularly in view of the overwhelming support from the public and our agricultural communities? I would be happy to give way if any member of the Government wanted to let us know what the thinking is there, and why the standards we are told will be insisted on are not written into law. It is an issue that causes grave concern to food producers and consumers, because the guarantees that help to protect farm businesses also help to protect the health of people who pick up their food from the shelves of supermarkets.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says she has received a great many emails about this from her constituents. I hope she has gone back and told them about the triumvirate of checks and balances that are now in place from CRaG, the Trade and Agriculture Commission and the International Trade Committee. The Government have put in place the mechanisms to scrutinise all that. That is the solution to this situation.

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but of course he is talking about scrutiny in the face of a Government with a nearly 80-Member majority. We have no way of pushing that forward if we disagree with whatever comes up in whatever trade deal comes before this House. The Government’s majority means that those of us on the Opposition Benches will be completely overruled. That argument is spurious, frankly, and I am afraid that many in agricultural communities, and certainly many of my constituents, simply do not believe the Government.

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Debate between Deidre Brock and Anthony Mangnall

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

All from the devolved authorities would like to see that, and the hon. Lady will recall that at the recent roundtable discussion between the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation the Minister said that a consultation will be taking place on the distribution of quotas between the devolved authorities. We are certainly looking forward to that. [Interruption.] And it has been launched today—good to hear.

New clause 3 would also mark a useful first step—long overdue—to giving effect to the agreed commitment in the Smith commission report. Fiscal transparency and accountability and a proper and thorough review of current arrangements would help determine whether an equitable share is being received and how to address any issues. This Tory Government may have forgotten the commitments made as part of that process to bolster devolution and strengthen Scotland’s powers, but we have not.

The Secretary of State made it clear the last time we debated this Bill that the involvement of the devolved nations had greatly improved it, but as that example shows, and as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has mentioned, the Bill is simply still not good enough. It is a hastily cobbled-together mess, as we see when we look at the dozens of technical amendments tabled by the Government in a frantic attempt to tidy it up. I feel sorry for the civil servants who have had to operate under these conditions. We are left simply wishing that the Government had listened to the devolved Administrations when they were saying that we needed an extension before leaving the EU or, even better, when they argued against leaving the EU altogether. Here we are being asked to agree skeletal framework legislation simply to cover this Government’s intransigence and their British exceptionalist view—it is a fig leaf for the absence of a realpolitik attitude in Whitehall, and a failure to appreciate the situation that the UK found itself in before the pandemic arrived or the massively worse situation that unfortunately it finds itself in now.

We do know, but I will remind the House, that the law of the sea will be the fall-back position if, as looks increasingly and disturbingly possible, we end up in the worst of all possible worlds, with no deal. I know that some people have laid heavy bets on that scenario and stand to make a lot of cash from it, but massive wealth in the hands of some is no substitute for a decent living for many.

The Prime Minister, in his best Bertie Wooster chant, wants to, “Get Brexit done”, as if there is a crock waiting for us at the end of a rainbow, but even if we get a deal done, we have no certainty of the position for fisherfolk. As I mentioned, the Minister has announced just now that a consultation is being launched that will debate how any additional quota will be divided between the four nations, but that is if any additional quota is there to be shared. As the scientific advice and information from the Marine Stewardship Council makes clear, stocks are not in the best of health, so there may not be extra quota to share over that three-year extension to the transition period. Equally, the Government have not outlined what they intend to do about the large chunks of England’s quotas vested in foreign vessels or what they think might be a sensible way forward for reallocating those quotas over the next few years. Will it be the fishing equivalent of a Government land grab, or will things just be left well alone, so that the “sea of opportunity” remains nothing more than a “Narnia” tale to be recounted in years to come. The referendum was a couple of Tory Prime Ministers and two snap elections ago, but there still has not been anything worked out about how to deal with the fall-out. The light is dimming on our EU membership and only now, after this painfully long journey, is the question being asked about what to do. We recognise that some sort of legislative framework is needed; I should speak here to amendment 57 before I conclude. We propose inserting the word “short” before “long term” to ensure that sustainability is not an objective that can be kicked down the road and not dealt with until later, but must be worked on at all times. The UK, it must be admitted, is not achieving a sustainable fisheries management, so the amendment would encourage the UK Government to take into account sustainability when carrying out their duties. Our hope is that this will be seen as the constructive proposal that it is meant to be.

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

If the hon. Lady has such a concern about sustainability, will the SNP start addressing the Scottish salmon fishermen?