Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Mark Hendrick Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

There was clearly a ministerial decision taken to ignore the concerns, views and lived experience of British farmers and their representatives in the National Farmers Union.

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

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

[Gareth Thomas]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I support the new clauses on impact assessments after various periods on issues affecting farmers, procurement, the UK regions, equality and human rights, and I shall make reference to the way in which the negotiations have been handled, the attitude of various Secretaries of State to scrutiny and, in particular, the role of the International Trade Committee.

As a member of that Committee, I have seen at first hand the Government’s mishandling of the trade measures that the Bill will implement, as well as their lack of transparency and of a coherent strategy on negotiating free trade agreements. Under the two previous Secretaries of State—the right hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)—the Government have deliberately prevented MPs from having a say in the details of the deals. It is painfully obvious how haphazardly negotiations have been handled.

Meanwhile, the Government have continued to tout the number of trade deals that they have secured, but the truth is that a majority of those deals are simply rolled-over deals forged when the UK was a member of the European Union. They are not even close to achieving the 80% of UK trade that they claimed would be covered by trade agreements by the end of 2022, including an agreement with the USA, which was pledged in the 2019 Conservative manifesto.

Australia and New Zealand have the distinction of being non-EU countries with which the UK negotiated trade deals from scratch post Brexit, but the proof is in the pudding. The trade deals are terrible for Britain. They benefit Australian and New Zealand exporters more than UK exporters, while UK agriculture, forestry, fishing, and its semi-processed food industry are left to suffer the consequences. Australia and New Zealand received full liberalisation on beef and sheep and unfettered access to the UK food market, but the UK did not receive the same concessions in return. The Government’s own Back Benchers have exposed what we have known for some time—that securing those trade measures was a box-ticking exercise, rushed through to get a deal done, and not necessarily in the best interests of the UK.

The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), recently criticised the Australia trade deal in the Chamber as not actually being a very good deal for the UK, admitting that

“the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return.”

Indeed, he said that

“since I now enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches, I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed…unless we recognise the failures the Department for International Trade made during the Australia negotiations, we will not be able to learn the lessons for future negotiations.”

He went on to say:

“We did not need to give Australia or New Zealand full liberalisation in beef and sheep—it was not in our economic interest to do so, and neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom he has just quoted, also said that he felt that the Government were in such a rush to get a deal signed off before the G7 summit in Cornwall last year that they bypassed a great deal of scrutiny of the agreement, even by themselves, so for political reasons they cast aside the interests of British farmers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is truly reprehensible?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree that that is reprehensible, but it was not the first time that it happened. The Japan deal was a roll-over deal, but parts of it were new and were added at the last minute. The Government delayed the details until 24 hours before the report was published, so the International Trade Committee could not scrutinise it properly and comment on it. It happened with Japan before it happened with Australia.

[John Spellar]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the irony that the Liberal party, which was founded on free trade and campaigning against the corn laws, is now becoming an agriculturally protectionist party?

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I will not comment too much on that. There are rules to free trade—it is not a free-for-all—but at the same time, I do not think that the Liberal Democrats believe in totally free markets any more than we do.

Records show that the former Prime Minister, then the Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk, pressed ahead with the deal despite receiving detailed warnings from her own officials in 2020 that she was acting against the UK’s best interests. The British agricultural industry and farmers already facing pressures from inflation and labour shortages stand to lose the most from this Bill, as the NFU has long maintained. These deals are not in our economic interest and are a threat to domestic business and food security. They could also force many farmers out of business, according to the NFU president, Minette Batters. Ultimately, the Government may see implementation of these deals as a stepping stone to accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, but I am dismayed that that is at the expense of our own farmers and our wider economy.

May I ask the Government to review the negotiations on the chapters of this agreement, and the lessons learned from those negotiations, and to make an assessment of how this experience might inform the negotiation of future trade agreements? If other countries, in CPTPP or elsewhere around the world—whether in South America or wherever—can see that this country can be rolled over so easily in its negotiating power, it sets a bad precedent for future trade deals.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

The trade deals between our country and Australia and New Zealand are historic. They are the first deals that this Government have negotiated outside of the European Union. They will have significant consequences for our farmers, exporters and a number of key industries and, importantly, they chart the course for the UK’s journey as an independent trading partner and negotiator. It is disappointing, then, that today’s debate is the most extensive opportunity many of us will have to feed into such agreements.

The provisions of the Bill apply to just one of the 32 chapters of the UK-Australia agreement, and one of the 33 in the New Zealand agreement. That means that the impact of the Bill and the amendments tabled by Members is restricted and does not go nearly as far as we might like. It is no secret that these deals are a disaster for British farming. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed new clauses 7 and 8, which would require the Government to report on the impact of these chapters on British farmers and on environmental standards, food standards, animal welfare and biodiversity.

Our farmers have been sold out by a Government willing to sacrifice far more than they should have to get new deals across the line. It is farmers who will be forced to pay the cost of the Government’s shiny new deals, with a combined hit to the agricultural, forestry and fishing sector of £142 million and to the semi-processed food sector of £322 million. The costs of producing sheepmeat are 65% lower in Australia and 63% lower in New Zealand than in the UK. While the Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), has reassured us that his Department is confident that the UK market will not experience an influx of the import of such meat as a result of these agreements, the risk remains that the complete removal of tariffs will allow UK markets to be filled with this cheaply produced meat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who has underlined what this debate is about. The Government are in the dock for selling out British interests, in particular farming interests, at a time when Parliament has basically been blindfolded in the process, unable to see the mandate or the negotiations, or to properly ratify the outcome.

What we have before us is an array of amendments to address the impact of these deals, which have already been signed, on all our sectors—in particular on agriculture, procurement and the NHS. Those are fundamentally important sectors. The amendments, which I support, have been tabled because it is still unclear how much damage has been done by these deals. They were done in haste and rushed through the door, which put us in a weak bargaining position. Any concession was simply just given. We do not know the detail of how much harm has been done. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that we gave far too much for far too little, which I would call the understatement of the year. The Government’s projection is that GDP will grow by 0.1% in 15 years, but we do not really know the details.

What we do know though, to take the perspective of a Welsh sheep farmer—we heard from the hon. Member for Arfon—is that Australian sheep farms are on average 100 times the size of Welsh ones. We know too that in New Zealand and Australia they only focus on three or four main breeds of sheep. There are also economies of scale—New Zealand focuses on ensuring that nearly all sheep give birth to twins, as opposed to three lambs, which might kill the mother, or one, which would be less productive. We also know that their shelf life and mechanisation of food processing are far in advance of ours.

We know, therefore, that our farmers face a major threat, at a time when exports to the EU have been stifled by unnecessary barriers as a result of a botched Brexit deal, thanks to which we have seen a 15% reduction in overall trade. So it does not look too good; and what is more, the Government have signed up to giving Australia and New Zealand unlimited access in 15 years, in terms of beef and lamb. What precedent does that set for food exports when we do a deal with Brazil, for example?

With the war in Ukraine, we are now in a world where people are quite rightly concerned about food security, yet we are basically undermining our domestic production, at a time when Russia has increased its overall agricultural production by 15% since invading Crimea and facing sanctions. Basically, we are saying that we will turn our back on the EU and do a deal with Australia, undermining our own farmers. Is that a good idea? Surely, we need to be producing more healthy food locally, at a time when one in four people in Britain is in food poverty.

As it happens, I take a particular interest both in food, as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and in trade, as the rapporteur for the Council of Europe, charged with ensuring that democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sustainability are embedded in agreements, but none of those are embedded in the Australia and New Zealand agreements. On democracy, there is no facility for the mandate, the negotiations, or ratification to be properly looked at, hence all these amendments. On due diligence, there is none when it comes to climate change, human rights and so on, where we can find best practice. For example, the EU deal with New Zealand refers to the rights of indigenous people, the Maori people, and various issues about due diligence in supply chains. Our deal does not have those things because it was rushed forward.

Trading further afield is more environmentally damaging, at a time when we should be concerned about climate change. We also know that Australia is the worst carbon emitter in the world, at 17.5 tonnes per person, compared with the 4.8 tonnes claimed for Britain in terms of production—for consumption, it is 8 tonnes per person. I hope we will have an opportunity to superimpose a carbon border tax in due course and that this deal will not rule that out.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I have recently returned from visiting Singapore on behalf of the International Trade Committee, where it was mentioned to us that Singapore has done a green economy agreement with Australia, which looks at emissions as part and parcel of that trade package. Given what my hon. Friend has said about Australian emissions, could he perhaps comment on that?

[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.