Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Gareth Thomas

Report stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Gareth Thomas

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. A lot depends on how it is framed at the start when the mutual or co-operative decides to register. Remember that this is an opt-in; therefore, any conditions upon the dissolution of the company will depend very much on its registration and constitution. Those would allow for this, if the organisation were so set up. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that as well.

Returning to the previous intervention, I hope the Minister will give some assurances, because there are obviously none in the Bill. I hope that moving in the direction of the Law Commission setting up a review of the sector and of the two pieces of legislation he wrote to me about that need review will bring the rules and legislation on co-operatives, mutuals, associations and friendly societies up to date with what is seen as best practice across Europe. Italy, France, Spain and Germany are far more advanced in how they help the sector, in terms of both taxation and the way in which organisations are viewed and are able to expand.

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

My hon. Friend has done an impressive job of getting his Bill to this stage. He will know that one problem with increasing access to capital for mutuals has been the roadblock of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. When the Minister reflects on the question raised by the hon. Member for Gloucester and on the contribution of my hon. Friend, will he clarify whether he has instructed HMRC to co-operate fully with the Law Commission’s work? If it does not, we will still have a roadblock in terms of increasing access to capital for mutuals.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

I concur totally with my hon. Friend.

Let me close by thanking you, Mr Mundell, and by thanking my colleagues for their contributions and for being present to support the Bill. I also thank everyone who has worked so hard to make it a success, including Peter Hunt and Mutuo, the Co-operative party, the co-operative sector, and the Minister and his Treasury officials. Only by working in a modern and supportive business environment will co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies be able to make a full contribution to the prosperity of our country by serving the interests of customers, and, indeed, citizens.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Gareth Thomas

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

Of course we will want a much more meaningful process of scrutiny of trade deals when we switch Benches, but we also want to make sure there is a much more meaningful process in the few months left of the Conservative party’s time in government.

As I have set out, it was deeply disappointing to hear and share so many concerns of Conservative Members about the scrutiny allowed to this House of the trade deals the Conservative Government have negotiated with such key partners. We know the ministerial team at the Department for International Trade was in crisis, with the Secretary of State at loggerheads with the Minister of State, open and clearly deep personal animosity, and then junior Ministers resigning in protest over lack of support for British exporters. The chaos was obvious and clearly profound. As with so much from Conservative Ministers, the difference between what was promised and what was delivered is considerable.

The now Prime Minister said when she was still the Secretary of State for International Trade:

“I can confirm that we will have a world-leading scrutiny process…That will mean the International Trade Committee scrutinising a signed version of the deal and producing a report to Parliament”—[Official Report, 8 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 1004.]

Only then, she said, will the CRaG process start.

The reality has been somewhat different. The Secretary of State was asked eight times to front up at the Select Committee and only finally turned up to answer questions after being shamed into doing so by her rightly angry Back Benchers. Ministers have failed to publish in full vital analysis or modelling to justify key provisions in the agreement, not least on agricultural quotas. The Government began the formal 21-day CRaG process before the International Trade Committee had produced its report, and even before the then Secretary of State had had the courage to show up to defend the agreement.

The Government refused to grant the Committee’s perfectly reasonable request for 15 sitting days between the publication of that extra critical information and the start of ratification of the CRaG process. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State underlined, Lord Grimstone—then a trade Minister—confirmed in May two years ago that the Government did not envisage a new FTA proceeding to ratification without a debate having first taken place. World-leading it has not been.

It is similarly extraordinary the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not properly resourced. If that does not change, it will be clear that Ministers do not intend to allow serious scrutiny of future trade deals, either.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

My hon. Friend mentions the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which it was promised would have proper trade union representation, but many months after it was set up, that has still not materialised.

[Gareth Thomas]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that ongoing concern. His intervention reminds me that it would be remiss of me not to praise the International Trade Committee, whose work on the deal, notwithstanding all the difficulties that it has faced, is an example of the very best of our Select Committee system at work. Indeed, I say gently to its Chair that perhaps his Committee’s work is one small example of how the UK is stronger together.

I sympathise with the frustration of cross-party Committee members that no cohesive strategy for trade negotiations has been published, making it that little bit easier for Ministers to be pushed and pulled in whatever direction those with whom we are negotiating want. I hope that whoever is confirmed as Secretary of State for International Trade will address that key issue quickly. Why has there been such a contrast between what was promised to the House for such key deals and what has happened? Is it just incompetence, laziness or poor performance from individual Ministers, or is there something more profound here? Is it that the implications for procurement, British agriculture and tenant farmers—the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and others flagged up that issue—as well as for our food standards, for labour and human rights, for action on climate change, for buying British and for good digital regulation are so significant that Ministers felt it better to try to discourage a sustained look at the provisions in these deals?

The Australia and New Zealand trade deals are not going to deliver the sustained boost to economic growth that the country needs. Many have made that point. Welcome as the deals will nevertheless be, they will deliver at best marginal benefits for business, limited gains for consumers and few additional jobs. In the post-truth world that the Conservative party now sadly inhabits, the deals have been sold to us all as the start of a brave, amazing, fantastical post-Brexit era for British trade and growth. One can only wish that the same effort had been put into the actual negotiations as into the stories being told about these deals.

To be fair, there is genuine excitement from some about these deals: Australian farmers, Australian negotiators and New Zealand farmers were all delighted. On the upside, too, the deals have not led to the value of the pound dropping or a decline in foreign investment, and British farming and food businesses have not seen an immediate hit to their contracts. That, at least, is an improvement on the trade deal that the previous Prime Minister negotiated with the European Union. The overwhelming sense of the trade deals—with Australia in particular, and with New Zealand—is of deals done in a rush, with the now Prime Minister desperate for any deal, at almost any cost.

Some commentators have suggested—this point has been echoed by many in the debate—that in the rush to sign off the two new free trade agreements and bring the Bill to the Floor of the House, Ministers have failed to grasp how the deals leave Britain badly exposed for future negotiations with, for example, the US or Brazil. They argue that by undermining our food, animal welfare and environmental standards, the deals create difficult precedents in key parts of our economy, and that English farmers—and those in the devolved nations too—have been left most at risk of a long-term cumulative hit to their, and our country’s, economic interests, with the terms of these deals being used against us in even more significant negotiations.

It is, I have to say, extraordinary that Ministers made such a big offer to Australian farmers and got so little in return. The unconditional abolition of tariffs on Australian farm produce with few safeguards—a very big concession—is particularly surprising given that Ministers did not even negotiate basic protections for our most famous products, a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). Why did Ministers not prioritise protections of UK geographical indicators for our most iconic brands, such as Scotch whisky, Swaledale cheese, traditional Grimsby smoked fish, Yorkshire Wensleydale and Cornish pasties, to name just a few?

It is not just in Australia and New Zealand that Ministers cannot negotiate protections for our country’s best brands. Ministers still have not secured GI status in Japan for half the products they claimed they would. Indeed, ironically it appears Ministers are hoping their failure here will be partially put right through the knock-on impact of the EU’s negotiations with Australia.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Mark Hendrick and Gareth Thomas

Friday 22nd November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Thomas]

One hopes that the Prime Minister might listen to the warnings of the former Deputy Prime Minister, and that he will listen to other business leaders who have warned about the uncertainty of a referendum.

But I come back to this search to understand what powers and competences the Prime Minister might want to bring back to the UK. The Minister for Europe will not give us an answer, so I read the Hansard reports of the Committee stage at great length, but there is no sign there either of what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to bring back. In desperation, I faced up to the challenge of reading the speeches of the Minister for Europe. During all that time that I will never get back I fought the urge to sleep, and I am sure that, being the excellent boss he is, the shadow Foreign Secretary will now want to make sure that I get more than just a Christmas card in the post at the end of the year.

Having waded through the Minister’s speeches, I reached two conclusions: first, his civil servants are just finding him things to do. The speeches were not that different, although they were made in lots of different places. Secondly, and much more serious, I do not think he has a clue what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to bring back to the UK.

[Mark Hendrick]

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister is either unwilling or unable to say which competences he would like to repatriate because there is a question about his own competence, full stop?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes his point. The Minister for Europe should be intervening to tell us what powers and competences the Prime Minister wants to get back, but he has shown no signs of wanting to give that clarity to the debate in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, using all his European and referendum experience. Can he remember any other referendum situation in the UK where the Government proposed, as the Minister for Europe did in his speech, to ignore the Electoral Commission’s clear advice that the question needs amending?

[Mark Hendrick]

No. By the standards of the Conservative party, we have a moderate, reasonable Europe Minister in his place on the Front Bench, who has over the years given serious consideration to most people’s point of view on issues related to Europe. It surprises me that a man of his calibre is doing not only the work of being a very good Europe Minister, which he is, but the dirty work of the Conservative party, giving the impression that as a reasonable man he is disregarding the important qualifications set out by the Electoral Commission.

Finally, any question of leaving the European Union should point out that such an exit would have to be negotiated. Perhaps the question should be, “Should the UK negotiate its exit from the European Union under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty?” Any such question should make clear reference to the fact that we are already in the European Union, and the question should be whether or not we remain in the European Union.