Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 6 and 19 in this group. The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, in moving Amendment 1 are very sensible. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

According to today’s press, we are now 15 years behind on the commitment that we would reach £1 trillion of trade within a decade. It is now estimated that the target set by the coalition in 2012 will not be achieved until beyond 2035. This highlights the fact that we are starting to see the consequences of the significant non-tariff barriers introduced by this Government over recent years. Therefore, it is vital that mechanisms are as streamlined as possible for procurement and the rest of the trade agreements.

Amendment 6 is designed to probe the discrepancies in threshold levels in the Government’s procurement legislation, currently going through the House of Commons and which has been through scrutiny in the House of Lords. It probes why they are different for those seeking procurement opportunities for Australia as compared with those seeking them here at home. If you are a business seeking to bid for procurement in the UK, you now have to operate under quite a markedly different approach from that if you are looking for procurement opportunities within Australia.

I welcome the Minister’s letter to noble Lords, which he promised at the end of Second Reading and fulfilled. It highlights what we knew: that, factually, there is a difference in the threshold levels. The letter simply states that Australia was not willing to have the same thresholds as us, and so we simply said that we would have its thresholds. What did we get in return? If this is a concession to Australia then surely we got something in return as far as access is concerned.

The report on the agreement from the Australian Parliament’s treaties committee makes for interesting reading, as does our own report from the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. The Australian report is 225 pages long and can be summarised as: “We got a good deal.” Our House of Lords report, which is 36 pages long, can be summarised from our point of view as: “No, we didn’t.”

The Australian report highlights the fact that the Australians wanted to maintain their levels of thresholds—that was very clear. Thresholds are important; a considerable amount of scrutiny that we did on the procurement agreement was about whether the procurement would be below or above the threshold. If it is below the threshold, the reporting mechanisms, the contracts approach, and the way that schemes or pooled contracts can be put together are different. So we now have a higher rate for Australia.

At Second Reading, I raised the fact that this was done by subcentral contracting bodies. The Minister’s letter to me says that in effect I was wrong in saying that Australia was unique, because Canada has the same approach as Australia’s—but not for subcentral levels. The agreement that we rolled over for Canada for the CETA agreement, has the lower threshold, and we have now gone to the higher one. We are simply trying to find out what we got in return for providing a concession to Australia over the threshold levels. The higher threshold means that there will be extra complexity for businesses.

Amendment 19 is simply a probing amendment on the point that was raised earlier on the Procurement Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which was simply trying to seek protections. If we try to change this Bill and its mechanisms for the good, those changes will be protected by the Procurement Bill, which, as the Committee will be aware, will automatically repeal this one. We have the rather ridiculous situation that we are in Committee for a Bill that will be automatically repealed by a Bill that is going to go into Committee in the House of Commons. This is a mechanism to try to protect any of what we do. On that basis, I hope the Government might be minded to accept Amendment 19, or indeed they might have their own mechanisms or commitments, so that we are not wasting our time in Committee.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, three important issues arise from the limited number of amendments here, and I want to say something about each of them.

I shall start with the last amendment, Amendment 19. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, referred to the debates on the Procurement Bill, in which many of us participated. We are in a situation where the Procurement Bill will in due course repeal this legislation. We can see the timing a little more readily now: all being well, we should complete the passage of this Bill and I hope it might reach Royal Assent if not by the end of February then certainly very early in March.

The Procurement Bill in the other place still has a substantial amount of work to be done, and doubtless it will return here with amendments. That being the case, I suspect it would be rash to assume that it would pass before late May at the earliest, especially since the Session is to run longer. The Procurement Bill brings its provisions into force two months after the Bill itself is enacted, so in my view we could be in July at the earliest, and maybe in August or September, before the relevant provisions and the repeal take effect.

That being the case, there seems to be a perfectly good rationale for this Bill being used to create the necessary regulations. One matter that we did not get quite clear in our previous discussion is that this Bill, once enacted, can be used to make regulations. Those regulations will subsist even though this Act will subsequently be repealed by the Procurement Act, as it will become. So there is a purpose in passing the regulations in the meantime. There is a particular purpose, which I will not trespass into, relating to the relationship with Scottish legislation. The fact that this Bill can be used to make those regulations is particularly helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, knows that I agree with the proposition that, if an amendment were to be made in this House to this legislation, it would be inappropriate for it to be automatically repealed. However, we secured assurances from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to the effect that the Government under those circumstances would make whatever changes might be necessary to the Procurement Bill in another place. I am hoping that my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston will have a similar briefing and a similar reassurance to give us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord; as usual, he is extremely perceptive. The point I am seeking to make is that, under the GPA, subcentral and regional bodies are covered. We have existing arrangements under the previous EU rules for subnational bodies, and we currently have subnational special drawing rights with the EU. My question is: what impact will the higher threshold that we have conceded to subregional bodies within Australia have on those businesses? I fear that it means a great deal of complexity, so, for us to say back to the Government that they should be having discussions with Australia to bring the thresholds down, rather than just give up, would make sense for British businesses.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Well, obviously, if we were in the course of further discussions through the Joint Committee arrangements on the free trade agreements to modify the agreements so as to reduce the thresholds, I imagine that there would be some benefit to our businesses—but that is not the position we are in at the moment. I certainly do not see that we can arbitrarily and unilaterally impose different thresholds through our legislation. The Minister will have to confirm if I am correct, but I did not understand it to be the case that the WTO general procurement agreement gives us existing access to entities in Australia’s procurement below the federal level. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong about that, and I have no doubt that the Minister will have the briefing to tell me if I am wrong. For those purposes, I just do not agree with Amendment 1 as moved.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking in what is my first Bill Committee in your Lordships’ House. I start by saying how grateful I am for the engagement that I have had with the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Purvis, since Second Reading of this important Bill. I am also grateful to them for tabling the amendments in this group. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for those extremely helpful interjections.

As we have heard, this group deals with how the Bill impacts on the UK’s procurement rules, both now and under the Procurement Bill, which is currently awaiting Committee in the other place, once it is enacted. I recognise the concerns raised by noble Lords on protecting UK contracting authorities and the importance of the discussions we are having in this Committee. Having listened to the contributions of noble Lords today, I hope to reassure the House that these amendments are not required. Perhaps I may begin by thanking this House’s International Agreements Committee for its valuable scrutiny of the Australia deal, the report on which stated:

“The Government has been broadly successful in incorporating its objectives on procurement into the agreement and we welcome the procurement chapter.”


On Amendment 1, on general effect, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, I reassure the House that these powers cannot make changes beyond what is necessary to implement the procurement chapters of the Australia and New Zealand agreements, while ensuring that the UK procurement system continues to function. I think my noble friend Lord Lansley covered that in his comments. Rather than conferring unnecessary powers on the Government, Clause 1(2) and (3) ensure that, when the regulatory changes are made, they do not have the effect of creating a separate, parallel set of regulations for Australia and New Zealand suppliers alone. This is the concept of conformity.

As a member of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement—the GPA—the UK, as has been discussed, has a most favoured nation obligation to not discriminate in its treatment of businesses from different parties to the GPA. To meet this obligation, the changes needed to the procurement rules resulting from the Bill need to apply to all GPA parties, as I think we have also discussed. This is laid out in the Explanatory Notes, which, for useful repetition, I restate:

“This will ensure procurement regulations remain uniform and coherent by not imposing different or conflicting procurement procedures on contracting authorities for procurements covered by the FTA, and ensure the UK can implement its obligations in the FTA in a way that is consistent with the UK’s other international procurement obligations.”


The Bill will lead to a wider range of protections for tendering parties and, ultimately, better value and choice for our procuring entities. The changes will make the system simpler, which is something all parties desire.

Turning to Amendment 6 on the equalisation thresholds, I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about these agreements placing additional burdens on suppliers—and, frankly, contractors or contracting parties—by having a different threshold to that in the UK’s procurement regulations. I have great sympathy with his objective. However, I hope to persuade the noble Lord that his amendment is unnecessary and, in doing so, show that the UK can meet its market access commitments in both the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements and can bring these agreements into force.

Amendment 6 proposes that no regulations can be made in respect of subcentral procurements that are valued above the threshold amount specified for such procurement in the Procurement Bill. The value I have here is 200,000 special drawing rights. By not allowing any regulations to be made for subcentral procurement with a value in excess of the threshold amount, the UK would not be able to give effect to its market access commitments—my noble friend Lord Lansley covered this very successfully—for all subcentral procurement under the UK-Australia FTA, because the threshold for subcentral procurement is 330,000 SDR; or any subcentral procurement under the UK-New Zealand FTA, valued at 200,001 SDR or more.

Having different thresholds—after our discussions, I took this away and investigated it—between parties is commonplace in the GPA, as we have discussed. For example, as I believe I mentioned in the letter sent to the noble Lord, at subcentral level the UK has a threshold of 200,000 special drawing rights, as do New Zealand and Japan, while Canada and Australia have a threshold of 355,000 special drawing rights.

On the question of whether the different threshold values between the UK rules and the FTA present a burden to UK contracting authorities, let me reassure the Committee that, under the current UK procurement rules, the only threshold that contracting authorities need to worry about is the one in the UK rules. That is the core point. This is because the SDR thresholds set out in the FTAs themselves determine the contracts that, in the event of an Australian or New Zealand supplier wanting to challenge a UK procurement procedure, are eligible to be addressed by UK domestic courts. So, effectively, this simply allows the concept of challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not see this group of amendments as doing anything other than enhancing and improving the Bill. They will not wreck the Bill, but they could make a considerable difference to how the public and farming communities view the implementation of the Bill, and I hope the Minister will agree.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it may be that I am not paying sufficiently close attention, but it struck me as rather odd that the starting point was a discussion of the advice that was given to the Secretary of State on 13 April last year by the Trade and Agriculture Commission in relation to the Australia deal and on 16 June last year to the Secretary of State on the New Zealand deal. The purpose of that advice was to answer a number of questions. To characterise them generally, they were, “Do these agreements undermine our statutory protections and our ability to protect animal welfare and human health?”—and, to characterise again, the short answer in each case was “No, it does not”. So it seems me that the starting point, not least of Amendment 3, is undermined. It seems wholly unreasonable to ask for a report from the Trade and Agriculture Commission when the TAC has already had the opportunity to give its advice to the Secretary of State.

The second thing that is missing from the debate so far is that Ministers have been very clear, not least in the letter that I think was sent to the International Trade Committee in the other place and to our International Agreements Committee, that they are committed to a monitoring report on both these agreements every two years and to a comprehensive evaluation five years after the coming into force. Some of these amendments look for earlier and more frequent reporting. I have to say, earlier reporting seems to be misplaced. It is going to take time to understand the impacts of these agreements, not least because, for example, the tariff rate quotas that are available for some of these products have not yet been absorbed, so the starting point for thinking about what is the base case for the impact of the agreements must at least allow for the possibility that, in the absence of the agreements, there might have been some increased importing from Australia and New Zealand using existing TRQs.

The third thing I want to say is about George Eustice, who I like. We have worked together, and I enjoyed working with him, but I have to say two things. Number one, if you subscribe to my view of collective responsibility—I see former Ministers in their places—it does not stop when you leave the Government subsequently. You subscribe to collective responsibility when you enter into government and you enter into collective decision-making. In my view, I stick to that—even, in my case, extending it to my coalition friends. If George Eustice did not agree with the decision that was made in relation to either of these agreements, the time to leave the Government and to leave collective responsibility was then, not at a subsequent point when he is on the Back Benches.

The second point to make about him—clearly, he said things that people will say are interesting for the future, not least on the setting of deadlines, while the Government have moved away from that idea—is that the principal argument he made about the risks associated with the agreement and food standards was the risk of the importation of hormone-fed beef. His argument that this was a risk was only because we might subsequently enter into the CPTPP and, under it, we might be subject to an investor state dispute resolution that would force us to dispense with our ban on the import of hormone-fed beef. These are extremely unlikely propositions. As the TAC made absolutely clear, despite the fact that a proportion of beef cattle in Australia are fed hormone growth promoters, none of them—nor their products—may be imported to this country, because we have a ban. So the risk presently does not arise.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

That is the heart of the problem—as we will go on to consider in the next set of amendments. Since we left the European Union, there have been no checks at our frontiers to show to what extent the meat coming into this country observes the criteria to which my noble friend referred.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend simply makes the point that the Government should implement the legislation that exists. We have no need to change the legislation to ban the import of hormone-fed beef or the use of hormone growth promoters on beef imported into this country, since the legislation already exists. The point is its implementation—and messing about with this Bill does not change that at all.

I have one final point. As I turn to the CPTPP and sheep farmers, I should say that my sister-in-law is a sheep farmer in north Wales. She may take a view about the New Zealand agreement, principally because of lamb imports, but she has never mentioned it to me. She probably thinks that it is a pretty remote risk compared with the many risks that she has to put up with on a daily basis.

I am UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group; my noble friend Lord Howell, who is sitting on the Front Bench, was one of my predecessors. My Japanese friends tell me that we are making good progress on our potential accession to the CPTPP. There are clearly issues. In this context, if one were critical of the Government, it would be on the risks associated with the precedent of tariff liberalisation—to the extent that it was offered in these agreements—being used by other counterparties as a basis for their negotiations, not least through the CPTPP. They may seek that in the schedules that they are looking for from us before we are allowed to accede to the CPTPP. Notwithstanding that reservation, in the view of my Japanese friends, other aspects of the negotiations stand a fair chance of being completed in the first half of this year.

On the basis of what the Government have already said about impact assessment and reporting in the future, I think the amendments in this group in particular are not required.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. There are two points to bear in mind, particularly about the agricultural concern. First, Australia is a very long way away; and, secondly, the big market for Australia and New Zealand is due north of them in East Asia, not over here.

I do not see even the hill farmers in Britain suffering seriously. I do not think that this will be a major target market for Australia and New Zealand. Let us remember the scale. This is a very marginal agreement. It is not a bad deal, but it is certainly not a big deal. It will not change much in our economy; even on the Government’s own estimates of the increase in GDP that might result as a consequence of these two agreements, it is really marginal.

So I am very doubtful about calling for a raft of impact assessments; it seems to me that that is not really necessary. The one amendment that might be necessary is Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, which takes us back to procurement standards. I can see a case for that, but not for looking sectorally across the agreements and calling for impact assessments in every case.

It would be reassuring if the Government could say something about the non-precedential nature, in their view, of the agricultural agreements with Australia and New Zealand. We read that the Canadians and the Mexicans are pricking up their ears and asking for the same terms that we have given to Australia and New Zealand. Those countries are much closer, and a major target market for both is Europe. If one were to look beyond them to, say, Brazil, Uruguay or Argentina, then I would say that the hill farmers in Britain would have a real reason to be concerned, if the Government were to follow the precedent of their deal with Australia and New Zealand, which is going to come in slowly, over time, and will be pretty marginal in its economic effects. If that were to be applied to trade with Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, there would be very serious effects on UK agriculture.

What we most need from the Government is not an impact assessment of the effect of the deals that they have done but an undertaking that, since very different considerations would apply, they would do very different deals with other future partners.