Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely clear that our NHS should never be on the table in any trade negotiation, but that is one of a number of significant issues that could have been properly raised and ventilated had there been a proper process of scrutiny.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill, not just the trade treaty, allows, through the negative procedure, Ministers to change procurement rules? We can say here that the NHS is not for sale and not on the table, and Ministers can say that, but this House does not have a cast-iron guarantee that we would have a vote before any change in procurement rules. An amendment to the Bill to allow that to be done through the positive procedure would be one commitment the Government could give to ensure Parliament gets a cast-iron guarantee.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Government do not give that commitment, we will bring forward an amendment in Committee to seek that commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the fact that we should allow British authorities to put conditions on procurement that pertain to labour rights, trade union rights, local recognition and the employment of workforces at a rate that is higher than the national minimum wage? It is important that the Government do not provide foreign companies with easier access to bid for British contracts than that which British companies would have.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes two very good points: first, we should ensure that our British firms have the support that they need to compete in the procurement process; and secondly, this should not be some sort of cloak beneath which there is a race to the bottom on workers’ rights. Both those things are important.

The concerns that have been raised about these two deals and the process of scrutiny amount to a problem with the Government’s approach to trade policy. There is no core trade policy and no clear strategy or direction. That criticism has been echoed by the International Trade Committee.

There has been a lot of talk from the Conservative party, but the delivery on trade agreements has been noticeable by its absence. There is no US trade deal in sight, and we await the India deal—as promised by the now previous Prime Minister—and the meeting of the target of 80% of UK trade being covered by FTAs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

An additional amendment that might be useful would be to change the requirement for secondary legislation so that we enable the Secretary of State to introduce it only when they “must” comply according to the trade deal and not at their whim, whereby they “can”. That change from “can” to “must” will be vital to ensure that there is not an open door for Executive action.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes another very good point about the inadequacies of the scrutiny process.

Access to British markets is a huge prize for many other global economies. The Government have to stop selling us short and put in place a proper, core trade strategy that will allow our world-leading businesses to thrive and, for once, truly deliver for communities across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Yes, I agree. It is incredibly important that we have a basis on which we can improve and that is absolutely the case. We would not be able to improve on these deals if we did not have them in the first place.

The Japan deal was a relatively easy one to scrutinise, because it was basically about looking at whether we had secured better terms than the European Union, based on the fact that we all started at the same time with that deal. It was a cut-and-paste deal with added lines, but the important point is that it was a modification of a roll-over deal.

These two deals are massively important, because there are two fundamental things that we need to consider. First, what are the UK Government’s negotiating objectives? We have never really understood what they are. A number of documents have laid out bits and pieces here and there, but there has never been a cohesive document to tell us what we are negotiating against or how we are doing relative to the outcome that we want.

The second important point is that this is the very first time that we are looking at the process of ratifying a trade deal, and it falls short of what we really need. I welcome this debate, which is an incredibly important one, but it is not the debate that we should be having. This is a debate about enabling certain legislation to ensure that the trade deal goes ahead. The Opposition have already said that they will support the Bill, but in the unlikely event that the Bill did not pass, that would leave us in breach of our international obligations under the trade deal. The trade deal has happened, so we would now be in trouble if we did not pass the Bill. It is incredibly important that we understand that this is an enabling Bill; it is not about how we scrutinise the deal itself.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the point that we have passed CRaG before passing the enabling legislation, which is quite an unusual thing to do; normally in this country we pass enabling legislation and then ratify treaties. Does he think that perhaps the Government should have done things in a different order to ensure that the right scrutiny would happen and that there would be no risk, not even a minuscule one, of our breaching international agreements?

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (First sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call Lloyd Russell-Moyle.

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

Q I have heard some concern about the unequal nature of procurement with public contracts. Companies from Australia are able to have all the rights at a local and devolved level, but that is not necessarily afforded to our companies at a state and local level in Australia. Do you have views on what measures might be taken to rebalance that and ensure that, whatever the access is, it is the same?

Lucy Monks: The point that William made about the potential to address these issues in future forums is really important. We should make clear what is and is not possible. If you go through the annexes to the Bill and the agreement, there are obviously quite a lot of bits that are scoped out because of the more federal system in Australia and New Zealand. It is a matter of seeing how far we can progress these things and address them further down the line through the appropriate forums.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q So you are not in favour of any changes to the Bill or the trade agreement that would give those protections from day one? You think these things can be worked out as we go along?

Lucy Monks: Yes.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

What about the other two?

William Bain: Again, our response would be that trade deals tend to unfurl once they are ratified. We have strong joint committees set up under the agreements to look at implementation. We have just taken part in recent implementation discussions around the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, so they are very rigorous indeed. The committees have the ability to make clarifications and small improvements that do not change the overall text but can provide greater context about what the text actually means. At this stage, it is unlikely that we will be able to amend a closed agreement with Australia and New Zealand, but through the joint committee apparatus and the engagement that you as Members of Parliament will have with your colleagues in Australia and New Zealand, you can secure further clarifications that might lead to some of the changes that you are seeking.

Andy Burwell: Just to add to that, there is an important principle that will be a running theme throughout today’s discussion, which is that free trade agreements are only one means of achieving market access. Although at a national level, there is reciprocal access for procurement, there needs to be greater clarity at a federal level. Equally, there are opportunities and means of gaining access in Australia and New Zealand outside the free trade agreement process, through the market access work that DIT regularly does. Industry and the Government need to continue to work with our counterparts in Australia and New Zealand to seek greater opportunities between the nations.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations when they wish, not necessarily when required. That gives them a bit more scope and does not require them to lay the regulations for a vote in the House, which gives more time for you to hear about them. They can just lay them through the negative procedure, and they usually become regulations without much fanfare. Is that an adequate way to announce regulations and allow the discretion of the Secretary of State? Or would you want a stronger consultative process, or a vote, or a restriction on what the Secretary of State can do that is a bit more written down?

Lucy Monks: I guess that is always a concern with these kinds of processes. An opportunity to feed in if changes are made would be great. I know there is sometimes a need to move quickly to change regulations, but the opportunity to feed back into that process is obviously always welcome. That does not even have to happen within the context of what happens through a parliamentary scrutiny process; there can be conversations with the Department and parliamentarians, too.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

But a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult before regulations are made might be useful.

Lucy Monks: Yes.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

William and Andy, do you have any views on this?

William Bain: The maximum consultation with business and other stakeholders is important when important regulatory changes are being made, so we would encourage the greatest possible transparency from the Government in that respect. In relation to whether things are done through the negative process or the affirmative process, those will be issues for you as lawmakers to address. I am aware that if this Bill becomes an Act, it will be replaced by the Procurement Bill in due course, so there will be another opportunity to revisit this issue if it is considered that the legislative processes around order-making are ripe for improvement in some way.

Andy Burwell: Much like William, I am going to say that the decision about whether the negative or affirmative procedures are used and the processes in the House are for you to discuss and debate. In terms of business consultation, I have no doubt that if the Secretary of State and the Department deem it necessary to make further changes, they will consult with industry, and we would encourage them to do so in depth. Given the existing discussions, I have no reason to doubt that that would happen. The key thing is that if changes are made, industry is notified in a timely fashion, there is clarity as much as possible, and the changes are communicated clearly to all parties to enable them to utilise whichever provisions are changed, as well as prepare for them.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Do those things need to be on the face of the Bill? In respect of a requirement for the Secretary of State to have consulted business and industry beforehand and to have given a certain amount of pre-warning that changes are being considered, are you confident that that will happen anyway, whether under the current Government or whichever future Government come in? Would you prefer something to be on the face of the Bill to outline that process?

Andy Burwell: I am broadly content with where we are. I do not think a specific process necessarily needs to be set down in legislation because, as we all know, the world changes and in future we may need to have a process different from what we have right now. We should not hamstring ourselves with a particular approach in this legislation.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Thank you.

[Gareth Thomas]

Q I am sure that the three of you have had as much difficulty as I have had in keeping up with the ministerial changes in the Department for International Trade in recent months. One former Exports Minister said that he was unhappy with the level of support given to British exporters by the Department; do you share that assessment, or do you think he was just upset about something else when he made those comments?

Lucy Monks: Basically there needs to be more done to help businesses—especially small businesses—export. There is so much potential with the kind of businesses we have in this country and the kind of markets that might be able to open up to us. We are entering into a new world. We have had conversations with the Department for International Trade over the export support service, which is meant to cover the EU and basically help businesses find their way through the new relationship. Has that worked as well as it could have done? Has it been as targeted as it could have been in the level of support? Not really, but the Department has promised and is in the process of introducing a new system that is supposed to address some of the concerns we have levelled, such as providing detailed information in a way that is accessible to small businesses, rather than just pointing to bits of the Government website, which is what was happening before.

We need to keep working in the direction we are talking about and trying to improve the availability of those kinds of services, while also looking at, for example, new ways of working with the FSB or DIT to encourage more people to understand and to export. We would be happy if that were to continue. There are so many different things that will have to happen to encourage businesses, and especially small businesses, to think about exporting if they are not doing it already, or to export into new markets if they are unfamiliar with exporting to Australia and New Zealand, because the cost and the risk can potentially be so high. We all need to work together to ensure that that can take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I should just say that the session will finish at 10.35.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q It is good to see you again, Leo. We have seen you a few times in the International Trade Committee and at the WTO last week.

The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in a relatively broad way. First, do you think it would be useful to restrict more tightly what the Secretary of State can make those regulations on? If so, how? Secondly, would it be useful to include on the face of the Bill a requirement to consult with stakeholders and non-governmental organisations, or even with the advisory committees and standing committees that already exist in the Department, and/or the International Trade Committee, which as we know was treated appallingly by the Department under its previous leadership?

Leo Verity: Absolutely. That would be extremely worthwhile. We have talked about the parliamentary processes, but there are lots of big problems with the kind of consultation that has been available for civil society and for business organisations. We have certainly found it difficult to have those opportunities. Groups do exist—advisory groups, as you mentioned—that we take part in, and others within the Department for International Trade, but sometimes it is difficult to see the outcomes of the first discussions and, as you said, the relationship between the Department and the ITC has not been good enough either. It would be good to have some kind of meaningful mechanism for proper consultation with Committees, the public and also devolved Governments, which have been sidelined.

In response to your first point, on restrictions on what the Secretary of State can do, I think that would be worth while. I mentioned that the wording we were concerned about in the Bill was about regulations being made where considered appropriate; I am not an expert in procurement and I do not know what the intentions of the Government are in terms of the specifics of the regulations, but some kind of constraint on that language would be extremely helpful.

[The Chair]

We do not have time for any further questions so, on behalf of the Committee, I thank the witness for his answers.

Examination of Witness

Chris Southworth gave evidence.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Second sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Nick, you mentioned some carve-outs around procurement on environmental grounds, but we know from the Government’s numbers, which I challenged on the International Trade Committee, that they believe that New Zealand lamb, for example, even with the import carbon, is lower carbon than British lamb. As I say, I challenged them on some of their figures on Welsh lamb, in particular, because I am not convinced of that. However, assuming that is the case, the environmental carve-out would not stand and, on price and environmental grounds, Welsh lamb would effectively be excluded from procurement. We could be in a situation where schools in Wales were not able to serve Welsh lamb to their children, and were instead serving New Zealand lamb.

The deal does not cover schools in New Zealand and Australia, because those public institutions are at the state level, not the federal level. If, for example, we produced a certain crop or fish, such as British cod, cheaper, those products would not have that easy access, so people in Australia having fish and chips would not necessarily have British fish or British potatoes. Do you not think there is an inherent unfairness in this deal? Should there be some procurement conditions in the Bill to ensure that it is about reciprocity and, where reciprocity does not exist, to allow devolved or local authorities to take a divergent approach, as Australian local authorities will be able to do?

Nick von Westenholz: I certainly agree with the principle of what you say: these deals should be reciprocal. There are a number of elements of the Australia deal where there is an asymmetry. In some of the environmental aspects, there are provisions that apply to UK-wide environmental regulations, but only to Australian federal regulations rather than those at state level. Most Australian environmental laws actually exist at state level, so the vast majority of environmental laws are not covered by this trade deal. I would say that that is an imbalance and an asymmetry in the deal.

As I say, as a point of principle, I agree with you. The rather lengthy annexes to the FTA set out which bodies are covered at both national and sub-regional levels. It is not always easy to discern exactly what is and is not covered, so I will bow to your knowledge on the exact differences in the bodies that are covered—I would not be able to confirm that myself—but, where there are differences, we would be concerned about that.

I would temper that a little with the fact that I am not sure we think there will be a major exchange of business through procurement contracts on food as a direct result of this deal. We will need to keep an eye on that. It will probably be other, bigger industrial services contracts that are likely to benefit, so I would not want to over-egg it. However, as a point of principle, I agree with you.

Jonnie Hall: I will add one thing quickly. There was a reference to the carbon content of lamb from New Zealand versus the carbon content of Welsh lamb, or indeed Scottish lamb. I think that would be a real sticking point in many ways, because that carbon is not necessarily calculated using the same process and the metrics may not be directly comparable. We need a level playing field in how we measure the carbon or climate impact, or indeed any other environmental impact, of production in Australia and New Zealand versus production in the UK before we can draw any sort of comparison. If you cannot do that, you have to be very careful about any assumptions you make about importing any product because of its smaller carbon footprint or any other environmental impact before you rush into any deal.

Gareth Parry: I agree with everything that has been said. I have not seen the figures relating to the carbon footprint, but if they are correct, thank you for challenging them. I also agree with the point about carbon calculators, and as a union we have been raising that issue on a national level. The same calculator may be used to compare neighbouring farms, or even on a national scale, but the issues become even more apparent when we look further afield and discuss trade deals: the issues that arise in comparing the carbon footprints of two farm holdings five miles apart also apply when we compare the carbon footprint of a product produced in a UK nation with that of a product produced on the other side of the world.

It is really important to consider the scale of production in countries such as Australia and New Zealand, compared with the UK. I guess that has something to do with the conclusion that the carbon footprint is lower. The scale of production over there—and things are produced to different standards there, as has been said—cannot be compared to that in the UK.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q That is a fair point. The figures I quoted were from the Government’s Trade and Agriculture Commission, which gave evidence to the International Trade Committee recently. The Bill not only allows the Secretary of State to implement secondary legislation where it is required, but allows them to do so when they think it would be advisable. That is broader. We have signed an asymmetrical deal; we have given away more than we have got, and have opened up our markets more than the Australians have opened theirs to us. We will allow in a lower standard of goods, but the Australians will do likewise. The Government have sold us down the river, because we have accepted a deal written by the Australians. Should we be slightly more restrictive in this Bill? Should we say what things are required by the deal, and not give the Secretary of State any wriggle room to suddenly leverage in other things that they might want to include?

Nick von Westenholz: As a general rule, we are nervous about the overuse of secondary legislation to implement Government policies. That goes back to the earlier point about parliamentary accountability and scrutiny.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Hopefully through the affirmative procedure.

Nick von Westenholz: Yes, indeed. I would not like to comment, because you would need more expert legal commentary on the precise powers available in the Bill. I sit on the Trade and Agriculture Commission to which you referred, and our experience from that supports the points made by Jonnie Hall. We found very varied calculations of the relative carbon emissions from New Zealand and UK red meat production, which is exactly the point made earlier. To give New Zealand farmers due respect, on a global scale, they have comparatively very sustainable and good global emissions—as do we; we should be proud of ourselves as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I thought not. Thank you.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

What about by Belgium?

[Dr Mullan]

By us. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Lloyd Russell-Moyle.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Thank you for clarifying the negative and positive procedure. You are right that the use of the negative procedure means it will be very unlikely that, even if one Member prayed against it, it would get a full debate, and almost certainly not a vote. It would have to get the Front Bench and a large number of MPs to secure a debate. We know that on a number of occasions, even when things have been prayed against because of recess and scheduling times, they have still slipped through, so it is no guarantee, whereas a positive procedure is a guarantee.

I have asked people about the scope of the secondary legislation that the Secretary of State can lay down. In regard to the trade deal, the scope is slightly wider than “must”; it is currently phrased as “may”. Do you think that the scope is correct at the moment, or should it apply only to things that the Government are legally required to bring forward under the trade deal?

Rosa Crawford: Yes, we are concerned that the scope is very broad. As has been said by you and a number of members of the Committee, the negative resolution procedure makes the process for scrutiny and debate, and for full democratic—[Inaudible.] Using “may” terminology, rather than what the Government are legally bound to implement, introduces an element of concern that there might be a whole range of things brought in through this legislation that are not strictly required to be brought in, and that could be problematic because this Government have not suggested they are going to take an approach that is about protecting social standards and ensuring that social criteria are indicated in public procurement. We are therefore worried that there might be additional measures that would allow for further liberalisation of the public procurement processes, and for businesses that do not respect workers’ rights to be awarded public money. That would completely undermine the standards, so we are very concerned about the broad drafting of the Bill.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q Thank you for that, Rosa—much appreciated. I want to bring you on to the way that the Secretary of State gets to introduce these secondary pieces of legislation, because that is how much of the Bill will be enacted in reality, not through on what is on the face of the Bill. There is no requirement for them to consult with businesses, trade unions or other stakeholders. I am not suggesting that we create a complex mechanism, but what is your view on a line requiring the Secretary of State at least to demonstrate that they have consulted stakeholders and potentially the International Trade Committee, and sought their views before the laying of a negative or positive procedure? What is your view on requiring consultation with the International Trade Committee and stakeholders such as trade unions?

Rosa Crawford: We would strongly support the inclusion of such a provision because, as I say, it is essential to consult trade unions on the provisions in all parts of the trade agreement. On public procurement specifically, we need consultation with the unions to ensure we have the requirements there so that international labour standards and environmental standards are upheld, and that we pursue public objectives such as reducing inequalities through public procurement. That consultation with trade unions and parliamentarians is really important. The International Trade Committee is an important Committee that should be consulted, because there is expertise there on the public procurement provisions; then maybe other Committees that are relevant and have an interest should be consulted. Having that requirement for consultation with MPs would be a welcome addition to the Bill.

[Bill Esterson]

Q Can we go back, Rosa, to what you were saying about the impact on workers’ rights, and indeed environmental considerations? Can I confirm that your concern—or one of your concerns—about the Bill and the trade agreement behind it is that organisations have the ability to undercut rights and standards, in spite of what is elsewhere in domestic legislation?

Rosa Crawford: Yes, that is correct. With both the UK-Australia and the UK-New Zealand trade agreements, you have a weak labour chapter that makes reference only to the ILO declaration, rather than a requirement of fundamental international labour organisation standards respected by both parties. That is an issue in Australia and New Zealand because, despite the fact they both have progressive Governments, neither has ratified all the fundamental ILO conventions. New Zealand has not ratified the fundamental conventions on minimum age, health and safety, or freedom of association, and Australia has not ratified the fundamental conventions on minimum age, and health and safety.

Without that base of fundamental rights, there can be potential for a pressure on rights to lower here, as businesses take advantage of the market access they can get through the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand trade agreements to places where they can potentially respect rights less. That could pressure rights to be lowered here. You do not have a labour chapter that has high standards, requirements and rights, and it has an ineffective enforcement mechanism that requires a proven effect on investment and trade, which we think will be difficult to meet.

There are similar provisions in the CPTPP labour chapter, despite the fact that CPTPP contains countries that are egregiously breaching labour rights—such as Vietnam, where trade unions are banned, as well as Brunei. We have not seen the CPTPP labour chapter being used at all. To us, those kinds of provisions are ineffective when they are included in a trade agreement, so it is concerning that the trade agreements we have with Australia and New Zealand do not have those effective provisions in place for labour standards. It sets a concerning standard for trade agreements we might sign with future partners, particularly as the Government are considering signing trade deals with places where labour rights are much worse, such as Gulf states, India and Israel.

The direction of travel is concerning in Australia and New Zealand. The inadequate protections around environmental standards also have an impact on workers’ rights; allowing produce with lower environmental safety standards to be imported into the UK potentially exposes workers here to more dangerous chemicals and other production methods that impact on workers’ safety and protection. We are concerned about the approach taken in both agreements.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Third sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Thomas]

To be fair to the Minister, he sort of touched on the issue in very loose terms. Perhaps my hon. Friend may be reassured that amendment 5, which we are inching towards, would require much more consultation down the line. Perhaps that is a way to try to improve things for SMEs across the UK.

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

Is not the big problem—my hon. Friend rightly pointed this out earlier, but the Minister did not really reflect on it—that we are giving away negotiating elements for future deals? Opening this up to all GPA countries means that no GPA country will need to put it on the table. We have opened up our markets for them, and they have not opened up their markets—fantastic. We have cut off the nose to spite the face of all our small and medium-sized businesses, but other countries have not acted similarly. If we do this repeatedly with all areas of trade, in the end we will have unilaterally opened up all our borders but received no benefits for our small businesses. That is the basis of the Conservative negotiating strategy, and it is a disaster, is it not?

[Gareth Thomas]

I appreciate that Conservative Members will be focusing on other mistakes that the Prime Minister has made, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One wonders whether, in the rush to get a deal with Australia, Ministers essentially decided just to give up their negotiating leverage on these issues and hoped to push it through quietly without too much attention. None the less, we have aired these issues. We will reflect on what the Minister says, and we may well come back to this matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

After that big bang, I am very tempted to call the ghost of Christmas past, but instead I call the very living and very present, Lloyd Russell Moyle.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I will take that in the good manner that it was meant. Thank you, Mr Pritchard.

I speak to amendments 5, 7, 20 and 22 for three main reasons: first, because we heard evidence of great concern from businesses and other organisations about the consultation that this Government will do when bringing forward regulations and the trade deals themselves. The Government have established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, but it is able to produce reports only after the trade deal is signed, defeating one of the main points of its existence—it produces a long report but we go and ratify the trade deal anyway, after the horse has bolted. That is same with the International Trade Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

My hon. Friend makes good points about the way that France and European Union scrutinise trade agreements. In the context of agriculture, the other really good example is the United States. Recently, the United States trade unions had access to negotiating texts during the negotiation period and were able to insist on improvements to employment rights in the recent United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, which, crucially, protects workers in Mexico who face draconian approaches and attacks on trade unionists. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have a similar process in this country? In the absence of that process, the amendments are a desperately needed back-up.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I totally agree. The US is a much better example than us of scrutiny and engagement. It engages its elected representatives early on. We see a Democrat Government there—one of our sister parties—putting trade unions and small businesses front and centre in their ongoing prosperity, rather than trying to run roughshod and have corrupt practices, which the previous party of Government in the US was all in favour of.

There is a better way of doing this. The amendments are not the ideal. I am, desperately unfortunately, missing my Select Committee inquiry this morning on international trade agreements and how we how we process them. I am sure I will read the transcript of the evidence hearing with fascination this evening. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s inquiry makes it clear that the current ways that we produce trade deals and scrutinise their implementation—what these amendments are about—are inadequate. They are inadequate because they were created in an age when most of it was farmed off to the European Union and we had strong scrutiny processes of secondary legislation that came via the European Union—Committees that looked at that and debates in Parliament.

All that was swept aside—I will not get into the rights and wrongs of leaving the European Union. We have then just relied on a CRaG process and no other proper form of ongoing scrutiny process, which we would have accepted under the European Union, or which every other country has now developed, because trade deals are dynamic.

Gone are the days when trade deals were fixed in one piece of writing; they are ongoing, living, breathing documents. That is quite right, because trade deals really are multilateral deals on numerous issues: on not just direct trade but intellectual property and procurement, as we are discussing today. They affect the domestic implementation of issues, affecting how councils and public bodies are able to go about their day-to-day business, and the ability to consult.

[Gareth Thomas]

I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing his opening remarks. However, as he was reflecting on the weaknesses of the CRaG process, does he not think that perhaps part of the reason why Government Members genuflected towards the CRaG process so much, despite all its weaknesses, is that it was initiated by a Labour Secretary of State, Arthur Ponsonby, albeit 100 years ago? Perhaps that is what gives them some comfort. However, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is time to uprate and modernise it.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I do not think that even the most foresighted Labour politician would expect the rules that they designed 100 years ago to still be in operation today. Even if I managed to get one amendment through in my career here, I would not expect it to last 100 years.

The CRaG process, I am afraid, is not fit for purpose in the modern world. Although I do not want to prejudge what my other Committee will say, I suspect that is the conclusion that all sides are coming to—that it needs to be updated. These amendments allow a sticking plaster so that secondary legislation and regulations that are made must go through that process. That is what we heard businesses wanted.

The amendments would also ensure that all regions and nations of our country are properly consulted. The other part of my constitutional affairs hat is that we visit the devolved Administrations every year and speak to them about how they feel their relationships with the Union are going. I can tell Conservative Members that they think it is going very badly. That is not just the SNP in Scotland but Labour in Wales and the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland. They think that the way this Government consult and work with them is arrogant and dismissive. That is what every single one of them said, and what Conservative colleagues in the devolved Administrations said to us too.

[Sir James Duddridge]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive criticism. In the 25 meetings between the chief negotiator and the devolved Administrations, what, specifically, did the DAs raise on procurement issues that they were unhappy with?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Well, I can go and look at my notes and see if they said that procurement was a particular problem. Their concern was that they were presented with a faits accomplis time and time again. They were presented with, “This is the way that you can have it; accept it or leave it.” That was in a wide range of areas, but trade was one of their many concerns.

The amendments are not to say that the Government are not meeting with the devolved Administrations or are not in communication with them, but to say that the Government must consult and work with the devolved Administrations and the English regions before the regulations are laid, in a co-operative, rather than dictatorial, way. It is therefore important that they are agreed to, because they would provide the reassurance that is needed to rebuild the way that regulations are laid that affect the whole UK. We have seen how, when legislative consent motions have not been provided, they are still run roughshod over.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The Minister has just informed the Committee that the chief negotiator met the DAs 25 times in the run-up to this trade Bill being put down. Will the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown inform the House, if he knows the answer to this, how many times the chief negotiators from the EU consulted the devolved authorities in the UK and, indeed, the UK Government and Members of this House when trade deals were being negotiated, given that he seems such a fan of the way the EU conducts itself in trade negotiations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am sure that my Committee’s report will include a fantastic comparison and I will ensure personally that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine gets a copy of it when it is out. I can tell him, though, that when we were in the European Union, the devolved Administrations met the different sections of the European Union weekly, because the devolved Administrations had representatives in Brussels who would meet weekly on trade issues, and they would meet daily with the European Union officials. Anyway, we will move that to one side.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It may help to underline the hon. Gentleman’s point to quote Ivan McKee, the Scottish Government’s Trade Minister, who said:

“Once again we were not consulted by the UK Government before the introduction of proposed legislation that as currently drafted, bypasses the Scottish Parliament and undermines Scotland’s powers. That is…disappointing, but sadly no longer surprising.”

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I think that is the case here.

These amendments, particularly amendments 2, 20 and 22, which relate to the devolved Administrations, provide a failsafe for the devolved Administrations and English regions to know that they will be consulted. They provide a failsafe for the businesses, including small businesses, that we heard in evidence to know that they will be consulted beforehand. Of course, with all consultation, the Government can still go away and say, “We have listened to you. We have heard you. We have put forward our suggestions. You don’t agree with them, but we are still going to push forward, because we think that is necessary.” That is democracy; of course that has to be allowed, but what we cannot have is people being bumped into things at the last moment or presented with things as faits accomplis, and that is the situation at the moment.

I rose to support the amendments. I think that they are vital; more importantly, they are vital in preserving our Union. I know that some colleagues have a different view, and it is people’s own right whether they want to leave or not—it is not my choice—but I would like to see the Union preserved. I think that those on the Government Benches would like to see the Union preserved as well. I am afraid that if we do not start treating the devolved regions and nations of this great country with more respect and more humility, people will be out the door and it probably will be understandable.

[Gareth Thomas]

I rise to support amendments 5, 7, 20 and 22, which were tabled in my name and which my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke to. In so doing, I want to indicate, as I hope my interventions on the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts indicated, my strong sympathy with her two amendments as well. I hope that amendments 5 and 22, in that they are more wide-reaching because they cover Northern Ireland, Wales and the English regions as well as Scotland, might be sufficient to encourage her support for them.

Amendment 5, as we have indicated, seeks to lock in the opportunity for more consultation with the whole UK about particular regulations that might emerge around the procurement chapters. As I said in my opening remarks, the Australia free trade agreement is more than 2,500 pages long, and it is quite easy for the bits on procurement to be largely missed. The opportunity to lock in a bit of consultation at this point—before implementing regs have to be made—would help to ensure that there is specific focus on the procurement chapters in both deals.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

Thank you, Mr Twigg, for the opportunity to resume my speech in this debate that was opened by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts. I will speak in particular to amendments 5, 7, 20 and 22.

It is a particular joy that you are chairing the afternoon sitting, Mr Twigg, because you will know, having been both a Minister and a shadow Minister, just how much the odds are stacked against a shadow Minister in a Bill Committee, with 1,000-plus civil servants backing up the Minister versus just one researcher and, fortunately, some very high-quality Labour colleagues. The odds are very uneven.

When this morning’s sitting ended, I had begun some preliminary remarks on the case for amendment 5. I was about to highlight some of the issues around the differences between the New Zealand free trade agreement procurement chapter and the Australia FTA procurement chapter. I suspect that businesses will need some help to navigate those differences, so consultation with interested businesses across the UK would seem sensible.

It is tempting to think that the differences are so marginal that they can be ignored and that any flaws in the procurement chapters can be swept away by the upcoming procurement Bill or our accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. As the Minister briefly alluded to, with the CPTPP not yet on the statute book and with plenty of issues to be addressed before it gets there—if it does—we have to get the trade deal procurement chapters and their implementation right, as they will, without question, affect the legal landscape in which businesses bid for contracts here in the UK and in which British businesses bid for contracts in Australia and New Zealand.

Not only are there subtle and important differences between the New Zealand and Australia deal procurement chapters, but they are not the only such chapters that we have signed up to since our departure from the European Union; of course, we have the procurement chapter in the deal that the previous Prime Minister negotiated with the European Union. Again, there are subtle but none the less significant differences between the EU procurement chapter and the Australia and New Zealand chapters. It would seem an obvious and sensible thing for Ministers to embrace some help to navigate those differences, and amendment 5 would help them to do that.

Where do the differences lie? It is important to remember that the Government procurement agreement is the foundation text for procurement negotiations. The procurement chapter in the EU deal—the first we signed—keeps the GPA text and builds upwards from it. I hope to come to the evidence of the procurement expert Professor Sanchez-Graells in a little bit. He argues that the text of the procurement chapter in the Australia deal not only replicates but, crucially, modifies the text of the GPA. That creates a GPA-minus agreement and risks all sorts of complications and legal problems when bidding for contracts, both here in the UK for Australian and New Zealand businesses, and in Australia and New Zealand for British businesses.

Another reason that we should perhaps consult firms is that, as I understand it from the evidence that Professor Sanchez-Graells gave us, a UK firm could be barred from all remedies—the interim relief remedy, judicial review, as well as full redress, compensation—if they felt they were being unfairly treated in an Australian Government tender process, on public interest grounds. In a similar process in Australia, a French firm could be barred from interim relief but not from a redress claim. So the French firm could potentially secure compensation if it was treated unfairly if the contract was moved forward on public interest grounds, but the British firm could not. Apparently, that is because the UK firm’s rights are considered under the UK-Australia FTA, while the French firm’s rights would be governed by France’s membership of the Government procurement agreement.

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

Is not this another worrying sign that the trade deals and the Bill often sell British businesses short? British businesses are being deprived of rights that they currently have. I am sure my hon. Friend will confirm that, if we pass the Bill without amendment, it will mean that British businesses have less access and security in the Australian and New Zealand markets than they currently do under the GPA rules that extend to everyone already.

[Gareth Thomas]

That is certainly my understanding of the evidence that Professor Sanchez-Graells gave this Committee, the Select Committee on International Trade in this place, and the International Agreements Committee in the other place.

Let me spell out for the Committee where the problem lies. As I understand it, the Government procurement agreement allows countries to bar access to some but not all remedies, on public interest grounds, for companies that are unhappy with Government procurement decisions, but, crucially, it does not allow a ban on remedies involving compensation. That is the difference with the Australia FTA procurement chapter, which does allow a ban on remedies involving compensation.

Potentially, the firms of other GPA countries will have more comfort and ability to risk tendering for big Australian Government contracts, because they will know that they have some access to remedies if things go wrong in the procurement process and they want to try to get compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown rightly says, it takes some skill to negotiate a worse position for British businesses in terms of access to remedies than the situation we have now. That is probably not the biggest mistake that the now Prime Minister has made in her time in office, but it feels like a significant issue, and I look forward to the Minister addressing it.

Government procurement matters enormously. We have touched a little on some of the reasons for that. It helps if Government procurement is done well. One of the reasons why amendment 5 is necessary is to ensure that we do not make the current set-up for Government procurement in the UK worse but, instead, enhance it. Done well, Government procurement can help to build supply chain resilience. We saw the significance of that during the covid lockdowns, when our dependence on China became ever clearer and the need to re-onshore some of our supply chains became a topic for discussion by business and, I suspect, in Whitehall.

We are all too familiar with the horror stories about some of the dodgy personal protective equipment that was procured. We understand the context in which some of those decisions were made, but it is striking that Transparency International, with which I worked when I was a development Minister trying to tackle corruption in developing countries, felt the need to investigate the Government procurement market for PPE. It identified some 73 contracts, worth 20% of all the contracts, that it said raised one or more red flags for possible corruption. That suggests there is work to be done to improve the quality of Government procurement. The National Audit Office also highlighted concerns, where the Government admitted that they were not getting full value for money on PPE.

We also know that good conditions for Government procurement can create more choice and more scope for innovation, and can achieve better value for money. One thinks about the digital procurement expertise that we need, and the potential for artificial intelligence to help revolutionise public services. We need to make sure that the framework under which Government procurement contracts are being offered works well, and that this new injection of uncertainty—but also, potentially, enhanced opportunities for other firms to come into the Government procurement market—does not destabilise the UK procurement market but improves things. A bit of consultation might help in that regard.

I touched on some issues around levelling up, which, to my surprise, prompted murmurs of disagreement from Government Members. I understood from their chuntering that they think everything is rosy with Government procurement outside London and the south-east. However, some figures I have seen from the House of Commons Library suggest that at the moment, there is a clear bias in the Government procurement market towards businesses operating in London and the south-east. The last thing we would want is for the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand trade agreements to exacerbate the difficulties for businesses, not only in London and the south-east but in the west midlands, the north-west, the north-east or the east of England, that are trying to get into the Government procurement market.

House of Commons Library data demonstrates that of the 445 most lucrative contracts awarded by central Government in 2019, 202 went to companies in London or the south-east. That does not suggest that Ministers are using Government procurement to level up. We know they are not doing much else on levelling up, so one would hope that they would take the opportunity to consult more, as our amendment 5 would require them to, in order to ensure that the Government procurement market is not being made worse for businesses outside London and the south-east that want to get involved. It might be an opportunity to look at reforms and think about how businesses outside London and the south-east can be encouraged to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

Nevertheless, it seems a reasonable question to pose. A bit of better consultation might allow us to think about how we encourage more British businesses to secure Government contracts. The Minister rightly said that there is a good argument for extending the contracts covered by this legislation—he was thinking of contracts of unknown value and length—on the grounds that it would encourage more competition and better value for money, but we need to ensure that that does not put off good British businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones in the local area, from getting contracts. I am yet to hear any convincing story from this Minister or, indeed, Business Ministers or Cabinet Office Ministers about what they are doing in that space to shift things forward.

Let me come to some of the specific concerns that Professor Sanchez-Graells raised, which are the most troubling of the many issues raised in the evidence sessions last Wednesday. It is worth highlighting Professor Sanchez-Graells’s experience. He is a professor of economic law at the University of Bristol Law School and co-director of the Centre for Global Law and Innovation. He has done a lot of research on economic law, particularly competition law and procurement, and his research concentrates on the way the public sector interacts with the market and how it organises the delivery of public services, especially healthcare. He is a significant witness. He was clearly taken seriously by the International Trade Committee and by the International Agreements Committee in the House of Lords.

Professor Sanchez-Graells argued that there are a series of problems with the way in which the procurement chapter has been written that, in effect, create the GPA-minus problem, which could have a chilling impact on the appetite of British businesses to bid in Australia and New Zealand, unless Ministers can rectify those problems and provide comprehensive reassurance that Professor Sanchez-Graells may not have considered the whole picture. He has been explicit in saying that he wants the procurement chapters of both the New Zealand and Australia deals renegotiated and only then put into law, so it is important that we hear the Minister’s reaction to those concerns.

I had thought that the biggest problems with the Bill were the huge giveaway to Australian farmers, the lack of protection for British agricultural goods, the lack of progress on geographical indications and the shocking levels of scrutiny, but Professor Sanchez-Graells appears to suggest that there are serious issues with procurement and whether the procurement chapters present the huge opportunity that Ministers have been keen to big up. He says that the legal uncertainties in the chapter that the Bill would write into law ensure that the rules clash with the World Trade Organisation’s rules on procurement, and we would then risk breaching international law, be it the GPA or the two trade deals.

We know that Ministers have a record of not being bothered about breaking international law—one thinks of the Northern Ireland protocol or other aspects of the trade agreement with Europe—but if Britain’s reputation for international lawbreaking gathers ground, that could have a chilling effect on our ability to negotiate other trade agreements and implications for the confidence of the markets, which is particularly worrying.

The GPA is the baseline for opening up access to procurement contracts. I commend Ministers for the objective of creating a GPA-plus regime, and the Australia deal secures some more substantive obligations that point in the direction of such a regime, such as the electronic publication of contracts by authorities, the inclusion of a clause on environmental, social and labour considerations and a clause on SME access to procurement opportunities, the expansion of economic coverage through the inclusion of concession and build-operate-transfer contracts, and so on. However, it also deviates in ways that alter or reduce substantive obligations, so we have the creation of a GPA-minus regime instead.

The scope for legal uncertainty risks having a chilling effect in terms of British businesses wanting to bid for Australian and New Zealand contracts, and vice versa. Amendment 5 makes it clear that consultation is key, and amendment 22 would give us the chance to understand fully the impact of these GPA-minus changes. Both would be helpful additions to the legislation and would allow us to address some of the concerns.

The concerns Professor Sanchez-Graells expressed in evidence to the Select Committee were very technical and challenged members of the Committee—they certainly challenged me when I read back over them to fully understand their scope. To bring them to life at our witness session last week, I asked him to give some examples of where his concerns might have played out. One example I asked him to think about was a British construction business bidding for a contract to help build the Melbourne airport link, which the Australian authorities are tendering. He said:

“Let us imagine that an innovative British company that wants to sell low emissions rolling stock for that metro link in Melbourne airport goes and tenders in Australia. It is excluded for any number of reasons and it wants to challenge the decision. It could also be barred from access to remedies in Australia, which means that the UK tenderer has lost its time and probably made a loss on the project.”––[Official Report, Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Public Bill Committee, 12 October 2022; c. 42, Q52.]

That business could lose its access to remedies if the Australian courts embraced the decision of the contracting authority on public interest grounds—that the contract could not be delayed and the compensation not offered, because it was so important that the Melbourne airport link got built on time.

If the UK tenderer had spent substantial amounts to get that contract and then could not get any compensation for all that money, that would create a big disincentive for anyone from the UK thinking of trying to tender for future projects in Australia. It is important that the Minister and the Department for International Trade explain what steps they will take to prevent that risk from coming to fruition.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is there not also a danger that an international company could choose which of its subsidiaries a bid should come from? Rather than choosing the British company and channelling the money through it, it might consider that the protection offered would be marginally better should the bid come from the French or German company. The multinational company will choose to channel its bids through their other subsidiary companies outside the UK, which could deprive UK taxpayers of money and British workers of the contract, when the British company has done some of the necessary paperwork and processing. There does not need to be a material change; there only needs to be a theoretical risk that that could happen.

[Gareth Thomas]

Unfortunately, that is absolutely right, as Professor Sanchez-Graells argued. That is a real risk. There are potentially chilling impacts on British authorities that want to issue contracts, should New Zealand companies, and particularly Australian companies, bid.

On the possible GPA-minus provisions, a broader issue is relevant to the argument for amendments 5 and 22. Is the GPA being undermined? The GPA-minus provisions are not just an issue for the UK-Australia FTA, but are likely to be an issue under the CPTPP. Given how difficult it was to negotiate the GPA and how long it can take to secure improvements, enhancements and modernisation, one has to ask whether Ministers have given up a little on that multilateral process. Have they decided that it is so important to get individual procurement chapters agreed under trade deals with potential allies that we will give up on the process of modernising the GPA? Surely it needs to be a living document, because it dates quickly; the current version was negotiated more than 10 years ago and is already out of date on digital procurement and sustainability. The more GPA-minus provisions there are in trade agreements negotiated around the world, the more difficult it will be for the World Trade Organisation to negotiate an enhanced, modernised GPA. It would be good to hear what plans the Minister and the new Secretary of State have to prevent the UK-Australia chapter, with its GPA-minus provisions, from stopping any effort to modernise the GPA. One hopes that Britain would seek to lead that process at the WTO.

The second major concern of Professor Sanchez-Graells is why we are putting the two procurement chapters into law if we plan to accede to the CPTPP? It has its own procurement chapters, and both Australia and New Zealand are members of it. Those chapters are very similar to the Australia and New Zealand FTA chapters, so there is similar scope for uncertainty. We have been led to believe by the current Prime Minister and the previous Secretary of State for International Trade—presumably the present Secretary of State will tell us something similar—that CPTPP remains the top trade priority for Ministers. Professor Sanchez-Graells is concerned about the Government’s rush to get two procurement chapters on to the statute book when there is scope for future uncertainty. I am not sure what I think about that particular argument, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

We heard from the Minister this morning that potential accession to the CPTPP will not replace this agreement but be additional to it. Therefore, British businesses will have to cope with three different systems. We have also heard from the Minister that the Procurement Bill will not entirely replace the chapters and agreement before us, so there will be four potential regimes that people have to navigate. Is that not creating more bureaucracy for businesses rather than less?

--- Later in debate ---

I want to correct the record in one important regard. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow West did not mean to mislead the Committee or the House, which is a serious matter, but he was a bit ambiguous with the truth. He said that five years is 48 months. He is right, but he is not telling the full truth, is he? It is 60 months. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, voluntarily prayed in aid the great Arthur Ponsonby. I am not entirely sure that the good people of Brighton—particularly Momentum—would support him in praising that individual. If he googles him, he will see that Arthur Ponsonby resigned when the fascists in Italy invaded Abyssinia, and then resigned again later from the Labour party. As I say, it has been an interesting debate. A large number of points were made, and I will try to cover all of them.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

rose—

[Sir James Duddridge]

If I am given some leniency near the end, there might be an opportunity to intervene then, if there is a particular element that I have not picked up on, because there are about 25 issues that I need to cover.

Broadly speaking—officials will not like me saying this—I agree with a lot of what has been said. I agree about the importance of consultation, and of reviewing and evaluating what we have done. There is a lot of that in the Bill, and a lot of it has been done by the Government already. I will go through what we have done, but just because we have consulted, that does not mean we do what someone wants. It is a balancing act. I suspect the hon. Member for Harrow West would do things differently from me if he was in the hot seat, but I am sure he would have consulted as widely as the Department and officials did on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I am disappointed to hear that he will press two of these measure to a vote. He has thrown down the gauntlet, and I have picked it up, so hopefully I can persuade him not to vote on them, because we are covering a lot of the issues raised.

Communication with the devolved Administrations is integral to not only the way the Department conducts its negotiations but ensuring that legislation operates effectively in each and every nation of the United Kingdom. I am more than happy to reiterate the commitment of the then Secretary of State for International Development that the UK Government would not normally legislate without the consent of the devolved Administrations. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts may well say, “Why not put that in the Bill?” That is a valid point, but it is not one about procurement; it is about the fundamental nature of devolution. Treaty making is done at the UK level on procurement, as it would be in an international treaty on, for example, nuclear non-proliferation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Duddridge]

He clearly does, but that is not for this Bill. On scrutiny, Members drew comparison with the EU and the US. I gently point out that those are very different democratic bodies. The EU is a body of 27 nation states, remotely located; and the US has a presidential system, and an Executive that is more detached from the legislature, whereas we are much more integrated here.

On consultation, there was a wider discussion that related to all types of scrutiny but included procurement, so with your permission, Mr Twigg, I will go through how we have looked at scrutiny through the lens of procurement.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister is quite right to mention that those two systems are different. Norway operates a dualist system for international treaty agreements in the same way that we do. It operates a prime ministerial system with a constitutional monarchy in the same way that we do. Their Parliament has the ability to scrutinise the heads of terms of international agreements, and its committees can agree the additional measures that are coming through, and can be consulted on them. So, yes, he is right in relation to the two big examples that I gave, but there are many other international examples, and I do not want to bore the Committee by going through more of them. Will he not at least acknowledge that we are on the worse end of the scale when it comes to the consultation of Parliaments, devolved areas and civil society, not on the better end?

[Sir James Duddridge]

No, I do not. I do not want to go through a comparative analysis of every country around the world, but we are not. There is a lot in legislation that we have to do; there is a lot that is not in legislation that we do on a repeated basis. For example, on issues of the scrutiny of the New Zealand and Australia trade deals, particularly in relation to procurement, prior to our talks, we published all of our objectives. We published the economic scoping document and a Government response to the call for input. During the negotiations, we published six public reports of what happened, so Parliament and the public could input and lobby. We published extensive information at the agreement stage and at the in-principle stage. We also engaged in Parliamentary activity. All together, there were over 12 sessions with either the International Trade Committee or the Lords International Agreements Committee.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir James Duddridge]

I will just finish the point and then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was rather hoping that he was going to be at a Select Committee, but it is a pleasure to see him here—[Interruption.] I will finish my point and then I will give way. I apologise, Mr Twigg, for being slightly disorderly. We made nine ministerial statements and there were eight formal MP briefings; Ministers also made themselves available more informally to Members on both sides of the House.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I could not resist this Public Bill Committee and so I am missing the opportunity to grill the Secretary of State for International Trade. Hopefully I would not just be grilling her, but having fruitful discussions, such as those that we will now have. I look forward to doing that on future occasions.

The Minister listed a number of documents that the Government have published, but he has confused publishing information with having detailed, constructive and structured dialogues—with sitting down and engaging with people.

I have already publicly put blame on the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), and I will not repeat myself. However, for one reason or another, more than five times, she was unable to meet the International Trade Committee, and she was unable to meet it before it published its report on the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements. That led to an urgent question in the Chamber and a Westminster Hall debate. Will the Minister not at least accept that there is more that the Department could do to engage co-operatively with the International Trade Committee and others, to stop the contention that we have had?

[Sir James Duddridge]

During long interventions, sometimes Ministers jokingly ask to intervene, but I had been sitting down for so long that I genuinely thought I was listening to a speech.

Relations with the International Trade Committee have not been as good as the Government, the Committee or the House want. That is going to change. We will make ourselves fully available. I know the Secretary of State has already started having those meetings with the Committee. Her diary obviously shifts quite quickly, so I cannot say where she will be, when. I know there is a whole series of activities planned. I am looking at the Public Gallery; there are civil servants looking into how we can link better with members of the Committee. I will play my part as Minister of State at the Department, and will always make myself available to the Committee, if at all possible. It will be my top priority, over and above speaking to the House or taking part in other Committee processes.

The hon. Gentleman said, “You just publish reports. That’s not enough.” If that is all we did, it would not be enough, but it is not all we have done. There are inter-ministerial groups on these issues, which are attended by Ministers from the devolved Administrations, particularly those with responsibility for trade. The forum that we are discussing was established to consider all trade policy, and its effective implementation, and will be able to review and evaluate that policy’s impact.

The hon. Member for Harrow West seems incapable of using the word “effect” or “impact” without prefacing it with the word “chilling”, as if these were haunting issues. We want to evaluate policies, to look at the impact assessment, and to improve all the time. As has been said, the agreements are evolving. They get built on and improved. The forum has met eight times since its inception in 2020. It provides for open discussion about negotiation, and allows Ministers from devolved Administrations to contribute their views directly, both formally and, in the sidings, informally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Duddridge]

The unions are involved in the trade advisory groups. There is, I think, one issue with an offer that has been made to one union to join, but it is holding out because it wants another union also to be involved and is therefore not participating.

On returning to the Department after the previous sitting, one of my officials expressed surprise at the evidence given because it contradicted something she had been at—she had been present at one of those meetings. While I am happy to look again and the current Secretary of State has made it clear that she wants all consultees to be included in the process, we are the decision makers in our process, and I would not want to contract out UK Government decision making to any organisation.

I am not going to answer the question on the United States. I am responsible for many things, but not the system in the US.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The Minister has said that the trade unions are members of trade advisory groups, but I have looked up the membership of those groups, searching for the word “union”, and there are only four union members, and they are all farmers union representatives. I understand that farmers unions are important, but they are different from trade unions and the TUC, so either the list on the website is not up to date or there is some confusion here. It would be useful if we got some clarity.

[Sir James Duddridge]

Absolutely. On unions—I mean unions in the broadest sense; I am not trying to pull a fast one by referring to four regional national farmers unions—my understanding is that six unions, as the hon. Gentleman would understand the term “union”, as opposed to the Conservative and Unionist party, for argument’s sake, are genuinely involved in the trade advisory groups. That is what we would want.

That is on the record. If I am wrong and if I have misread my brief, I will correct the record later and write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of the unions, and perhaps with more information around the issue of the union being invited to something and there being some type of deal, if it is in the public interest to put that out. I want to encourage the unions to come and be part of the process, and I want us to make decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Duddridge]

Thank, you Mr Twigg.

The Government are committed to transparency. We have put forward a suite of enhanced transparency and scrutiny arrangements that go well beyond our statutory obligations.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Sir James Duddridge]

So early? Yes, I am more than happy to.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I am pleased to hear about the Government’s commitment to transparency, but at 3 o’clock, the Secretary of State cancelled her meeting with the Chair of the International Trade Committee. He turned up to the Department, where an official said, “The Secretary of State is going to be in the House for votes so cannot meet you now. We will have to postpone to another week.” Is that the reset that we were promised and the kind of openness and transparency that we should expect?

[Sir James Duddridge]

I have made the point that we want to establish a good relationship with the International Trade Committee, and the Secretary of State giving evidence to it is clearly part of that. The hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers sometimes need to deal with matters urgently. I do not know what other matters are going on, but I am sure that the Secretary of State has apologised profusely and looks forward—as I do—to attending that Committee. I am more than happy to update the hon. Gentleman in a bit more detail, informally—perhaps even later today if I have time to go back to the Department.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Lloyd Russell-Moyle Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

It is a matter of great regret that the devolved Administrations with responsibility for agriculture, wherever they are in the UK, have had no direct role in the negotiation of these deals, and that absolutely has to change when we are negotiating future trade deals to replace those left behind.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Is it not the case that in most countries that have federal, confederal or other such arrangements with devolved nations, those nations are involved and embedded in the negotiating teams? Does that not show the arrogance, in relation to co-operative relations across the Union, of this Conservative party, which seems determined to fulfil the hon. Member’s party’s wish, which is to annoy people in Scotland so much that they want independence?

[Richard Thomson]

That is certainly an interesting take, and entirely understandable, but I would far rather be making the arguments for Scottish independence on their merit, rather than on how much we and all the devolved Administrations are being vexed by a high-handed UK Government who are over-mighty and overreaching in this respect.

We have already been forced against our will in Scotland to trade outside of the EU and to be tied to a UK Government who seem hellbent on agreeing trade agreements at almost fire-sale prices just so they can pretend that Brexit is working. That is a thoroughly invidious position to be in, but it is the position we find ourselves in, for the moment at least, and we are determined to do all we can to try to mitigate the damage on this before we go back to the issue of principle that the hon. Member has raised. Make no mistake: the impact of these agreements will be felt throughout Scotland, and to that end it is vital that not just the Scottish Government but all devolved Administrations can have a full role, with their input being listened to, respected and acted on in future negotiations.

The Bill did not have to be like this. It was entirely possible to take a longer period of time to reach a more considered view. For those absolutely hellbent on leaving the European Union, there were better ways of doing it than the unmitigated car crash that has followed from the way successive iterations of Conservative Governments have gone about it. They seem to have spent more time negotiating among themselves than negotiating with those who matter. There are better ways of doing this, and there are better outcomes that can yet be agreed. I strongly urge the UK Government to repent, go back and try to achieve something better. It is within their grasp if they have the will to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

We are here to talk about a very small part of a much wider trade Bill. To some extent, we are only talking about it because the Procurement Bill has not been brought to this House from the other place. If it had, we might not even be talking about some of this Bill’s clauses at all. Is that not a disgrace? Almost no other country has such poor scrutiny of its trade arrangements.

Of course, Britain did not have such poor scrutiny of its trade arrangements before we left the European Union. In this place, we were able to use the negative resolution procedure at several stages, including the pre-stage. The European Parliament had the right to vote down the deal at the pre-negotiating stage, as well as the final deal, and our Government could do so through the Council.

Now the Government, in all their ineptitude, are the ones who decide. They forced the CRaG process through, which in itself was unnecessary because ratification cannot be fully implemented until all the legislation has been laid down. There was no need for the CRaG process to happen last year without any substantive debate or vote in this place, because the trade deal cannot be fully brought into force until this Bill has passed.

The Government’s whole about-arse process on trade —we have heard all the criticisms made by the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—shows that they have no real plan and no real idea about how to negotiate. When I ask my Australian colleagues what they may have compromised on and what we may have gained, they say, “It’s a pretty good deal for us—we wrote it.”

Through the amendments on procurement, there are several things we can do to ameliorate the mess that the Government have made of this deal. First, we can ensure that Parliament has scrutiny over how the details will be implemented. If the deal goes through, as we heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and in my intervention on him, it might weaken the protections on procurement.

Ensuring that the statutory instruments laid before the House are not written as poorly as the Bill and the trade deal, so there is no wiggle room on procurement, should be our first step. The way to ensure that is by holding Ministers’ feet to the fire. In the Bill Committee, the Minister seemed a bit unsure about how the affirmative procedure and the negative procedure work. It is clear that if statutory instruments are made via the negative procedure, there will almost never be a debate in this House. They will go through without debate, because Members of this House will not be able to pray against them in time; sometimes we have seen Governments deliberately laying statutory instruments when the House is not sitting and cannot pray against them. That is the reality.

The only way to ensure debate and discussion, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, is to ensure that the affirmative procedure is applied. That must be the bottom line. It is not hard, and it will not delay the process, because the Australians themselves need to go through an affirmative procedure when they implement measures. This is asking for nothing more than our counterparts are getting; to offer anything less would be to devalue and degrade Britain. We know that the Conservative Party is doing quite a lot of that at the moment, but come on; let us, at least on this one, show that Britain counts. Britain should be able to get something as good as what is available to Australia and other countries around the world. Underselling Britain is disgraceful, and we need to reverse that.

Secondly, we need clarity on the legal clauses. It needs to be made clear that they will not undermine the current protections around the world. As I said in my intervention, it is not a question of whether, in a court of law, we might reach a point at which British companies would be successful; that is irrelevant. The question is, would it be necessary to go to a court of law to determine whether British companies would be able to obtain compensation, or would everyone be so clear about the fact that a French company would be able to obtain compensation that a French competitor would be given a marginal competitive advantage? That is the question that arises from the poor wording in the Bill.

If a marginal advantage is given—even a theoretical advantage that in practice does not come about—multinational companies that can channel their trade either through their British company or through their French company for large procurement deals will do it through the French company, and then where will the tax be paid? Where will the revenue return? It will return to France, and Britain will lose out again. It is therefore vital for this clause to be included.

I am also deeply disappointed—and I wish the Government would accept some of the amendments that deal with this—about the fact that for Australia, the procurement requirements do not count at state level because Australia is a federal system. All its procurement, in respect of education, roads and building, universities and community facilities—I could go on—is at state level, so this trade deal does not bind the Australians. Because of the way this Government have negotiated the deal, they want to tie the hands of our devolved authorities and local government in a way in which Australian hands are not tied; again, selling Britain short. What we could see is the proper integration of our devolved authorities and local government, particularly big strategic local government—for instance, London-wide government and Metro Mayors. We could include them in the negotiations, or, even better, ensure that future negotiations do not allow an asymmetrical position in which we are included and others are not.

This is a poor deal, as we know from the other side. This is a poor Bill, which accepts everything from one side and protects Britain not one jot. The Opposition new clauses and amendments go some way towards ameliorating that. Ministers should accept them, thus ensuring that we can truly champion British businesses that are trying to trade around the world. That is what I genuinely believe we all want.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was not expecting to be called at this point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just removing a mint from my mouth.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Did you think I was going to go on for longer?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to do that—but what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Gentleman, who brings knowledge to these debates and, probably, to every debate. Let me also to say how pleased I am to be able to throw some of my thoughts and those of my party into this debate.

As a proud Brexiteer—that is no secret—I am pleased to see the opportunities that can and will come from Brexit, and we in Northern Ireland hope that we too will benefit from them. We await the Government’s endorsement of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which will give us the same opportunities as everyone else, but that is for a future debate rather than this one.

The potential of the Australian and New Zealand trade agreements is exciting for me and many others. The agricultural and fishing sectors are vital for my constituency, so my request to the Minister will be to provide the support to enable our agricultural sector to be protected. We in Northern Ireland are fortunate, in that we export food and drink products worth some £5.4 billion, and we export some 65% of that produce to the EU and across the world. We are already the epitome of what the Government are trying to achieve through this deal, and we are doing that right across the whole world. Lakeland Dairies is a good example. It is already moving to sell its produce in the far east, the middle east, Africa, south America and the USA, so it is very much to the fore. We also have Mash Direct, a buoyant company that is seeking markets overseas, and Willowbrook Foods and Rich Sauces, which likewise have farmers who feed into them. So we have a strong agri-sector in my constituency. The Minister knows that already; I am not telling him anything he does not know. He is always very astute and does his research so he will know what I am referring to, but I seek that wee bit of reassurance that my agri-sector in Strangford will be in a position to have those protections, and that we can be part of that export push that the Government clearly want to bring about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

My comment would be that Britain should be taking a lead, as it claims to, on mitigating climate change. The way to do that is to take best practice, from Singapore or anywhere else, and hardwire that into current and future agreements. That has not been done, because our economic, climate and other interests have been thrown to one side in order to just tick a box and say that we have got a trade agreement.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend mentioned carbon border adjustments. Is it not the truth that both Europe and America are now leading on these discussions, because they understand that trade deals without proper carbon and border adjustments are just ways of exporting jobs out of countries—degrading those countries, their workers and the environment in one fell swoop?

[Geraint Davies]

I am certainly a big supporter of what the EU is doing on carbon border adjustments, for instance ensuring that we have a level playing field for steel made in south Wales, which emits half the carbon of Chinese steel, and that there is an incentive to invest in green production domestically. The EU has taken a lead and we need to catch up. The United States is subsidising green industry and, as my hon. Friend will know, there is a tension between the two different strategies when it comes to ensuring a sustainable and greener future for all.

Turning to procurement, clearly it is not exactly a new idea that big multinational corporations will use unelected, private, often secretly held tribunals to try to fine democratically elected Governments who want to pass laws to protect the environment and public health. We saw that in investor-state dispute settlements. Most obviously, at the moment, we have got the Energy Charter treaty, which binds countries for 20 years to being sued if they try to pass laws to help the environment.

People will know that Germany, France, Poland, Spain and others are trying to withdraw from that treaty, although we have not heard much for the United Kingdom—because of its fossil fuel interests, I assume. My question is: why, when we know those companies will be quick on the draw in taking us to court and suing us, do we allow them a way in on procurement, so that when they do not get the business with the NHS, they can suddenly sue us? That concern is covered in new clause 1, which I very much support.

Finally, it is obvious that, out of the carnage of the botched Brexit deal, while obviously we want deals with Australia and New Zealand, the haste with which we have approached these deals has left us in a situation where they get all the benefits and we face a prospective loss. That is absolutely disgraceful maladministration from the Government, and I support the amendments to try to mitigate some of the harm done by their hopeless negotiation.