Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Assessment of impact on farmers—

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

(1) the UK-Australia FTA, and

(2) the UK-New Zealand FTA,

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

(a) each region of England

(b) Scotland

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) social, economic and environmental impacts.”

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 7—Impact assessment: British farmers—

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

(a) livestock farmers,

(b) arable farmers,

(c) upland farmers,

(d) tenant farmers, and

(e) family farmers.

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

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

New clause 8—Impact assessment: environmental standards etc—

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

(a) environmental standards,

(b) food standards,

(c) animal welfare standards, and

(d) biodiversity.

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

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

New clause 9—Review of effect on small businesses—

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

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

(a) to import goods,

(b) to export goods,

(c) to employ staff, and

(d) to remain solvent.

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

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

New clause 10—Impact assessment: National Health Service—

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

New clause 11—Review of negotiation of procurement Chapters—

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

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

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

New clause 12—Super-affirmative procedure—

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

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

(3) The appropriate authority must have regard to—

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of the relevant institution, and

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

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

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

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

(a) a revised draft, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 13—Impact assessment: climate change—

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

New clause 14—Impact assessment: labour rights—

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

New clause 15—Welsh sectoral impact assessment—

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

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

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

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

(a) Scottish ministers

(b) Welsh ministers,

(c) department of the Northern Ireland Executive, and

(d) representatives of the English Regions.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

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

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

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Geraint Davies]

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

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

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

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

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I am afraid that the hon. Member is misrepresenting the situation. In terms of concurrent powers, this is an established part of our devolution settlement. We are not, in these proposals, proposing anything unusual.

The breadth of our trade agreements means some policy issues will be within the competence of the devolved Administrations. The Government have always recognised that modern trade deals cover an increasingly broad array of policy matters. To enable more technical discussions, of course, we share draft treaty text with devolved Administrations for comment. That facilitates more detailed and comprehensive discussions between Department for International Trade officials and officials in devolved Administrations. There have already been discussions with the Scottish Government on the drafting of secondary legislation. In respect of the amendments, I understand that the Scottish Government wish to make the necessary statutory instrument to amend Scottish procurement regulations.

On new clause 12 and its consequential amendments, the super-affirmative procedure is used for statutory instruments when an exceptionally high degree of scrutiny is thought appropriate. An example would be remedial orders, which the Government can use to amend Acts of Parliament should the courts find them in breach of the European convention on human rights. It is therefore wholly disproportionate to use that process to approve a minor technical change needed to implement procurement commitments in the Australia and New Zealand deals. The potential unnecessary use of the affirmative or super-affirmative procedure could lead to delays in those agreements entering into force.

The Government are working to enter the agreements into force to ensure that UK businesses and consumers can benefit from the significant economic advantages as soon as possible. That is, of course, also the desire of the Labour Governments in Australia and New Zealand.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members and that they will not push their amendments.

[Gareth Thomas]

It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister, but it was rather striking that not one Conservative Back Bencher was willing to come along tonight to defend their party’s deal. We have nevertheless had an important debate with important speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson)—whom I congratulate on his appointment—for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams), as well as important interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord).

Ministers know that there are real concerns about the Australia deal and the precedent that it sets for future deals, and that here have been real concerns across the House about the parliamentary scrutiny of all trade deals, particularly the Australia deal. The behaviour of the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), has only underlined those concerns. Many have noted the huge giveaway of access for Australian farmers and how little we have secured in return in the same space. That is the fault not of the Australian negotiators but of the Government’s own wilful determination to get a deal by an arbitrary deadline, whatever the price.

The House will inevitably return to the issue of procurement. We will certainly encourage those in the other place to explore the concerns that I in particular have articulated in the debate—particularly as negotiations on CPTPP accession are moving forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Assessment of impact on farmers

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

(1) the UK-Australia FTA, and

(2) the UK-New Zealand FTA,

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

(a) each region of England

(b) Scotland

(c) Wales, and

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

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