The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord
Johnson of Lainston) (Con) My Lords, it is with deep regret that
the UK Government have been unable to secure legislative consent
for this Bill from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. We have
also not been able to secure a legislative consent Motion from the
Northern Ireland Assembly, given the lack of a functioning
Executive. This is disappointing, given that the same approach was
followed in the Trade Act...Request free
trial
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade ( of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, it is with deep regret that the UK Government have been
unable to secure legislative consent for this Bill from the
Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. We have also not been able to
secure a legislative consent Motion from the Northern Ireland
Assembly, given the lack of a functioning Executive. This is
disappointing, given that the same approach was followed in the
Trade Act 2021, for which the Scottish and Welsh Governments did
recommend consent.
The Government have sought to agree compromises with the devolved
Administrations. However, despite the best efforts of officials
and Ministers, we have not been able to reach an agreement with
the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I remind noble Lords again
that during the passage of the Bill and the deals it implements,
the Government have undertaken extensive engagement with the
devolved Administrations, including ministerial meetings,
official-level meetings and meetings of ministerial fora, and
there were 25 chief negotiator calls with the DAs regarding the
Australia free trade agreement alone. In addition, as I have made
clear in each debate on the Bill, I reaffirm the UK Government’s
commitment to consult the devolved Administrations before
exercising the concurrent power in the Bill. I beg to move.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking through the Bill, which
is a first for both the Minister and the country—our first trade
deal signed following our exit from the European Union. The
Minister’s enthusiasm for the Bill was always evident throughout
its passage. We now have a trade arrangement with Australia and
New Zealand. We will wait to see the overall and specific
effects, particularly upon our agriculture sector. While the
overall impact is predicted to be very limited, a factor caused
by the huge distance between Australia and New Zealand and the
UK, there were some specific concerns about certain Australian
farming methods and the effect on small hill farmers in the UK. I
suspect that these account largely for the failure to get
agreement from the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
My thanks go again to the Minister and his team of advisers for
their openness and, on this side, to , who again has shown good
judgment in facilitating the progress of the Bill.
15:38:00
Motion
Moved by
of Lainston
That the Bill do now pass.
of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to take my first Bill through
your Lordships’ House. I thank noble Lords for the constructive
approach that has been evident throughout the Bill’s passage. We
have had robust discussions and debates on the Bill. Likewise, I
have had the privilege in recent weeks of engaging with Peers
outside the Chamber, and I have benefited from those
conversations, which have been in-depth and valuable. The
experience, diligence and practical knowledge of noble Lords have
challenged and tested the strength of the Bill and its underlying
trade deals. I am sure noble Lords will agree that this provides
reassurance to the public on the quality of our democratic
processes, our accountability and the constructive challenge
function of your Lordships’ House. It remains for me only to give
a few specific thanks to noble Lords and others before we
complete our consideration of the Bill.
First, I thank the Opposition spokespersons, the noble Lords,
and , for the constructive
way that they have continued to approach the scrutiny of the
Bill—as well as the additional work outside in engaging with our
various high commissioners, which I personally appreciated very
much.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for
the valuable conversations that we have shared on this
legislation and her continued championing of our important
agricultural sector. I hope that she has been reassured
throughout the Bill’s passage through this House of the
Government’s commitment to maintaining our high food standards
and safeguarding measures for this sector and UK farmers within
both deals. It was due to the scrutiny of my noble friend Lady
McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that we identified the
minor drafting error in Clause 2(1)(a), which has subsequently
been corrected.
I thank my noble friend , whose knowledge, frankly,
makes my job all the easier as he makes the points in my speech
before I get the chance to do so. It is absolutely right that I
also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and all the members
of the IAC for their considered input.
This has been very much a team effort. Behind the scenes, the
extraordinary Bill team have put in an unbelievable amount of
effort. My thanks go to: James Copeland, Thomas Bingham, Donald
Selmani, Jack Collins, Alex Garcia-Pineiro and Catherine Ajani. I
also thank my private secretary Sehar Shaheryar and other
officials who make up my private office, led by Simon Moore.
Finally, I thank the parliamentary staff, the doorkeepers and the
clerks for their professionalism and continued support and to
your Lordships’ House.
The Bill provides a power to give effect to our procurement
commitments within these agreements, improving three areas of our
existing procurement legislation in the UK. We will see benefits
to our public services and companies trading in these partner
countries—ultimately, unlocking billions in government contracts
in a more secure way than ever before.
In conclusion, the Bill will achieve the essence of our
post-Brexit vision of Britain. Some noble Lords have questioned
the presence of the Government’s trade agenda during the Bill’s
passage. In response I say: here it is. These deals guarantee a
global interconnectedness of trade deals, with the United Kingdom
at the very heart of these new routes, meaning new opportunities
for our businesses and citizens. This will result in new markets
for our goods and services and new ways to travel and share our
cultures. To our friends, trading partners, clients, suppliers,
brothers and cousins in Australia and New Zealand, I say, “Hold
tight! The UK is coming.” I reiterate my thanks one final time
and, with that, I beg to move.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Purvis,
who is, unfortunately, unable to be here this afternoon. We thank
the Minister for his comments, as well as his patience and
expertise during the passage of this Bill. We thank the Bill team
for their help and support, as well as the Labour Front Benches
and Cross Benches. We also thank in the Liberal Democrat
Whips’ Office, without whose help I do not think that my noble
friend Lord Purvis and I would have been where we are today. We
support the passage of the Bill and thank the Minister for his
help.
(Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering his first
Bill successfully through the House—my congratulations go too to
the whole Bill team. I am grateful to him for the time he took at
every stage to talk me through. He knows of my disappointment
that the Scottish Government have withheld their consent, and
that this is not the deal that the British farmers would have
hoped for; but we live to fight another day and I look forward to
future trade Bills coming through.
(CB)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Kerr would have loved
to be here. I am speaking on behalf of the Cross Benches. I was a
member of the IAC until January; the Minister will remember that
we had some animated conversations when he first came on the
scene. He has kindly sent me a handwritten letter since then. I
was sorry to miss the debate last week on agriculture but I
welcome the assurances that he gave then. I am speaking now only
to congratulate the Minister on taking this enabling Bill through
to the end. I am glad that he has obviously enjoyed the exercise.
He is not going to be one of those uncomfortable Ministers on the
Front Bench, if I can put it that way.
I remind the Minister of one thing that we discussed: the need
for HMG to develop a proper trade policy that explains to people
what the UK stands for; that is what he was talking about just
now. By this I do not mean a checklist but a framework for FTAs
in which there is more mutual understanding, in advance, of the
issues involved. This does not breach secrecy rules but helps the
process of consultation with stakeholders—and there are many
stakeholders.
We said in our report that the FTA was politically significant
because it offered an insight into the Government’s vision for
trade in the absence of a policy. Australia and New Zealand was a
relatively easy start in this as we have so many common values
and standards with them, but they are not typical of the CPTPP,
which is coming quite soon and offers much wider challenges. All
I ask is that the Minister and the department continue the
dialogue with the IAC that was already started with the previous
Secretary of State; as the Minister knows, it is an ongoing
process, and perhaps he could confirm that in his reply.
15:45:00
(Con)
My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the Minister for
skilfully conducting the debates on this important Bill, which I
think will lead to much greater things in our future. I want to
put before him three issues, almost housekeeping issues, that
have arisen during the handling of the legislation, one of which
has just been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
I declare an interest as a member of the International Agreements
Committee, where the issue of trade policy and how specific or
general it should be has been a matter of lively discussion. That
is of course relevant to everything that we have been talking
about.
I ask the Minister to keep the three points that I want to
comment on in mind when we enter into future discussions on these
sorts of areas in FTAs, of which there are going to be plenty
more. First, the CRaG system—the Constitutional Reform and
Governance Act 2010—has come under a bit of strain, and the
question has arisen as to whether, when the other place resolves
that something should not be ratified, the 21 days that then
follow are enough to get the appropriate debates organised, or
whether in fact the Government are not obliged to have a debate
and maybe it does not fit into parliamentary time and the net
effect can be that there is no debate at all. Perhaps that is an
area that needs looking at again.
Secondly, the whole of the CRaG system depends on the assiduity,
energy and powers of the committees. The resources on the
clerical and research side of many committees, including all the
ones that I have served on for 30 years, have been second to
none, and have been particularly superb here in the House of
Lords itself—but are they enough, given the size and number of
the treaties that are coming through? We are not even talking
about the EU treaties that are handled by the International Trade
Committee; we are talking about thousands and thousands of
treaties and agreements, let alone instruments, pouring through
day by day. Today’s giant Executive generates a continuous flow,
a cascade, of these things. Do the committees have the resources
and underpinning that committees in similar parliamentary systems
to ours, here in Europe and elsewhere, seem to have? Should there
have been harder thinking about whether, in a modern society with
a modern Parliament trying to hold the Executive to account, the
resources of committees are the key—the physical resources,
clerical resources, research resources and back-up, and the power
to summon and so on. These are all matters of lively discussion
that have arisen in this area.
My third point is a bit of a puzzle, but we are going to hear a
lot more about it: the question of consent from the devolved
Administrations. I need to have one thing clarified for me. I
thought foreign policy was a reserved matter under the devolution
legislation that we passed through both Houses. When the Holyrood
Parliament refuses consent, I want to know under what powers it
is doing that. As the Minister has indicated, that does not
actually stop a Bill proceeding and being enacted, but it is a
rather curious situation when, if the devolved Administrations
have views on this, they can just sit there and not provide
consent. Is it because they think Scotland should have some
separate relationship with Australia and New Zealand—I cannot
believe that is the case—or is it simply some inner procedural
matter where they do not feel there has been adequate
consultation? Either way, it is a very uncomfortable situation to
encounter. My noble friend has handled it excellently, but these
things sit there and require some hard thought if future Bills of
this kind, of which there will be many, can be conducted in a
reasonable way where Parliament feels that it really is getting a
grip on what is happening.
of Lainston (Con)
I greatly appreciate noble Lords’ comments. I think I was so keen
to get this Bill through that I slightly jumped the gun. I
apologise to those noble Lords who were waiting to speak. I
greatly appreciate the personal comments towards my own
enthusiasm. I have hugely enjoyed the process of working with so
many noble Lords in the first of what I hope will be a series of
very exciting, exhilarating and profitable trade deals for the
whole of the UK.
I have always been very specific, as have the Government, that
this is a journey. We are very keen to hear how we can engage
better. It is absolutely in the interests of the Government and
these trade deals that there is a broad consensus around their
power and effect to elevate our economy to new heights;
otherwise, we will not be able to broadcast the ramifications and
specifics of the trade deals to the country and people will not
take advantage of them. Personally, I am continuing to engage at
all possible points.
I am delighted to answer a few of the questions. In terms of the
committee resourcing, I will certainly take that away. I thank
the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for raising that. The IAC under the
noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done a very good job. A number
of noble Lords have spoken to that today and during the debate.
It is certainly worth making sure we have the resources in this
House to ensure we are scrutinising according to the appropriate
CRaG process.
The noble Lord touched on the consent issues. They have clearly
been an important feature of the debates around these trade
deals. It does not necessarily look like we have resolved them
for future trade deals. However, as the noble Lord rightly said,
these are reserved powers. If you consult your Walter Bagehot, as
I did over the weekend, he makes it very clear and is absolutely
right that the Executive should be making treaties and be given
the freedom of rein to implement them across the entire United
Kingdom.
Having said that, we have made huge efforts to consult and engage
with the devolved nations. I personally made extra efforts, which
I would not describe as effort at all but part of a necessary
process of good governance and communication, to ensure that
devolved nations felt that they had a way in to this process. It
is absolutely confirmed that our negotiators spend a great deal
of time with officials from all parts of the United Kingdom to
make sure that their views are fed in. This reflects on the sort
of trade we are trying to do in terms of the specific industries
of these nations. We are one United Kingdom, and our power in
negotiating global trade deals comes from that fact. It would be
a great mistake to try to abrogate that for any reason. Having
said that, consultation and communication are paramount to us,
and I personally commit to them.
(Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that the Bill is about incorporating
into domestic legislation the procurement provisions and chapters
of the treaty? Although treaty making may be a reserved power,
the implementation of the procurement-related legislation
reflects directly on devolved matters. That is why consent should
have been provided by the devolved Administrations.
of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment. I do not believe that
is necessarily the case, in the sense that this is a procurement
Bill relating to a trade deal, so it is right that concurrent
powers can be initiated. I believe that is the case. That is
certainly how we have operated on the premise of this Bill.
We wanted to gain consent because that is good practice, but, as
I say, we focused on consultation and communication, which has
achieved the same goal. The whole point of this Bill and the
trade deal it underpins is that it will lead to greater trade,
more commerce and economic activity and greater wealth creation
for the entire UK, which we should celebrate.
If I may come to a conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their
extremely helpful scrutiny. I was glad to hear the noble Lord,
Lord Kerr, mentioned. It proves the power and point of this
Chamber. Any of the body politic who discuss significant revision
of the powers of this Chamber should think very carefully about
the actions taken on this Bill. Through the scrutiny of this
House and the participation of individual Members, we have been
able to draft a more effective Bill and draft it correctly, for
which I am extremely grateful. I am very excited about the
opportunities that the Australia and New Zealand trade deal will
give us, our citizens and this nation. With that, I beg to
move.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons with an amendment.
|
