(Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for
International Trade, if she will make a statement on the United
Kingdom’s proposed tariff offer to the Australian Government on
their agricultural exports.
The Minister for Trade Policy ()
Our trade agreement with Australia is very likely to be the first
from-scratch deal that we have struck outside the European Union.
It is a major milestone for global Britain and a major prize
secured for our newly independent trade policy. It is on course
to slash tariffs on iconic UK exports, saving business
potentially about £115 million a year.
The deal will be the most advanced that Australia has struck with
any nation bar New Zealand, and will, we expect, be particularly
forward-leaning in areas such as services, procurement and
digital trade. It will be a great deal for the UK, and our
farmers will continue to thrive. The agreement is a gateway into
the massive CPTPP—comprehensive and progressive agreement for
trans-Pacific partnership—free trade area in the Asia-Pacific,
and opens doors for our farmers into some of the biggest
economies of now and the future.
Our food is among the best in the world and incredibly
competitive. We should be positive, not fearful, of the
opportunities that exist for our agriculture and our farmers. We
give the EU preferential trading terms, which I do not recall
those on the Opposition Benches objecting to. We should be
unafraid of giving our Australian cousins something similar,
taking the chance to deepen trading ties with one of our closest
friends and allies.
Australian meat is high quality and produced to high standards,
and it arrives here in low volume. Meanwhile, Australia has some
of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. The UK
accounts for just 0.15% of Australian beef exports, and our
analysis suggests that any increase in imports is more likely to
displace food arriving from the EU. Any deal we strike will
contain protections for our farmers, any liberalisation will be
staged over time, and any agreement is likely to include
safeguards to defend against import surges. Negotiators are now
working to agree the outstanding elements with the aim of
reaching agreement in principle in June.
This is not the end of the process. Later this year, Parliament
will be given ample opportunity to scrutinise the agreement—we
welcome scrutiny of the agreement—as well as any legislative
changes that may be required before the agreement enters into
force. Parliamentarians will also receive an independently
scrutinised impact assessment. Mr Speaker, you will know that our
scrutiny arrangements are among the most robust, and in line with
other parliamentary democracies. Indeed, in some areas we go
further still.
This will be a great deal for our United Kingdom. It will deliver
big benefits for both countries and will help us build back
better from the covid pandemic. I commend it to the House.
Let me make it clear at the outset that we support a trade deal
with Australia that is designed in British interests and will
create jobs in our economy and increase our exports and growth.
What we cannot support is a deal being rushed through in time for
the G7 summit without proper debate or consultation, let alone
the advance scrutiny that the Government promised by the Trade
and Agriculture Commission. We cannot support a deal on
agricultural tariffs that will cost jobs in our farming
communities, undercut our food standards, increase our carbon
offshoring and open the door to the destruction of our farming
industry through further lopsided trade deals.
As an exercise in intellectual honesty, I would just ask all
those on the Conservative Benches, in the right-wing think-tanks
and on the newspaper comment pages to consider for one second how
they would have reacted if it was Brussels that had negotiated
this trade deal and sold out Britain’s farmers. They would have
been rightly furious, and they should not be any less so when it
is their own Government who are doing the selling out. However,
what matters now is to try to improve the deal on the table
before it is signed in Cornwall.
Assuming that it is now too late to remove the offer of zero
tariffs, can I ask the Minister of State to pursue three other
changes? First, will he put in place a safeguard trigger—which,
as I am sure he knows, Australia was willing to accept in its
deals with Japan, China and the United States—to protect British
farmers against surges in cheap imports? Secondly, will he make
it clear that zero tariffs will apply only to Australian products
that meet the same standards that British farmers are required to
meet on food safety, animal welfare and environmental
protections? Thirdly, will he insert a review clause into the
deal so that, if its impact is even more negative than was
forecast by the Government last year, there is scope both to
amend the deal and to learn from it in future trade deals? Those
are the bare minimum changes that we need to mitigate the damage
that this rushed and botched negotiation is inevitably going to
do, so I hope that the Minister of State will agree to pursue all
three of those priorities today.
I thank the right hon. Lady again for tabling this question. Let
me answer each and every one of her questions. First, she said
that this had been rushed through. I was at the Department at its
inception in the summer of 2016, and one of the very first things
that was announced in 2017 was our target for our initial batch
of free trade agreements, which included Australia. That was back
in 2017 and repeated by the current Secretary of State in 2019.
She talked about the Trade and Agriculture Commission. This will
be up and running soon—[Interruption.] If she is that keen to see
it up and running soon, she might have supported the passage of
the Trade Bill, which became the Trade Act 2021 just before
Easter; instead, we saw her repeated manoeuvres to delay and
undercut the Bill at the time.
The right hon. Lady talked about any deal potentially
undercutting our food standards. I was absolutely clear in the
statement that there will be no compromise on our standards of
animal welfare, food safety and the environment. That is our
manifesto commitment, and it has often been repeated. She made a
point about emissions and food miles. There is controversy in
relation to meat production emissions, but no more than 5% of
emissions are reckoned to come from the transportation across
oceans of that product.
Let us look at Australia’s current trade patterns. Only 0.15% of
Australian exports come to the UK. Australia sells 75% of its
beef and 70% of its lamb into Asia at the moment. That is where
the fast-growing markets are, and that is something that we in
the UK are seeking to get access to ourselves through agreements
such as the CPTPP and other trade agreements. There is a big
opportunity here for UK agriculture.
The right hon. Lady asked about a safeguard trigger. As I said in
my opening statement, safeguard triggers are typical of free
trade agreements. This is still a free trade agreement that is
subject to a live negotiation, but I would say that these things
are typical of free trade agreements. She asked if we would have
zero tariffs if the Australian produce met our standards. The
Australian lamb and beef coming into the market today meets our
standards. There will be no change as a result of the free trade
agreement to our standards. Australian beef and lamb will
continue to have to meet our import standards. If that is the
only objection to zero tariffs, I take it that she would welcome
such a situation if there were zero tariffs in the deal. She also
asked about a review clause. Again, that is a typical feature of
free trade agreements.
The right hon. Lady has to explain why she is seemingly so
opposed to such a trade deal with Australia, a key Commonwealth,
Five Eyes and like-minded trade ally of the United Kingdom. She
did not complain about the zero-tariff, zero-quota access for EU
beef and lamb, which had no staging on it at all. Why does she do
so for Australia? I believe her real problem is that she still
wants to remain in or rejoin the EU, like her neighbour the
Leader of the Opposition, and cannot see the benefits of doing
any trade deal with Australia.
I commend the prospective deal to the House and invite more
progressive voices on the Opposition Benches to join us in
backing an FTA with our close friends and allies.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
We have all heard much in recent days about the threat posed by
large-scale, low-cost Australian meat production, but we all know
that consumers care about quality. What opportunities does the
Minister see in a free trade agreement with Australia for the
hill farmers of Aberconwy, whose grass-fed stock can run freely
across the rain-soaked hills of north Wales, breathing in the
clean mountain air?
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents in
general and his farmers in particular. There are great
opportunities worldwide for the Welsh lamb sector. For example,
British lamb is currently not allowed at all in America. We are
looking at fast-growing Asian markets, and I refer back to the
importance of the Australia deal as a springboard to CPTPP. Half
of today’s global middle class is in Asia, and almost 90% of the
next billion middle-class people in this world will be in Asia.
That is where the growing demand for high-quality meat, such as
the Welsh lamb produced by my hon. Friend’s constituents, can be
found, and that is where I see great prospects and great
opportunities for his constituents, his farmers and farmers
across the United Kingdom.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
[V]
Everybody wants more trade deals to be done, but the Minister
simply is not listening to those at the sharp end. Martin
Kennedy, president of the National Farmers Union Scotland, said:
“Our seafood industry has already been hit hard by Brexit and now
Scottish farming is next to be sacrificed—and once again it’s
Scotland’s key industries which will bear the brunt of a Tory
Brexit people here did not vote for”.
NFU England has warned Ministers that farmers will struggle to
compete if zero-tariff trade on lamb or beef went ahead. The
RSPCA has warned that tariff-free access for Australia would
betray the public, farmers and animals. Those are just some of
the warnings to Government from those affected, not from
politicians. Will the Minister rule out tariff-free access for
Australian agricultural produce?
Nothing must threaten our actions to mitigate climate change.
Australia is home to large energy and mining firms and has lagged
behind other advanced economies when it comes to addressing
climate change. Will the Minister guarantee that no deal with
Australia will include investor-state dispute settlement
mechanisms, or will he press ahead and betray not only today’s
public, farmers and animals, but those of future generations?
It is always good to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I noticed in
his series of questions that there was, for example, no mention
of the £113 million-worth of Scotch whisky sold into Australia at
present that is subject to 5% tariffs. Australia is actually the
eighth largest market by volume for Scotch and has been growing
at 7% per annum. There was no mention of the opportunities for
Scottish financial services, FinTech or agrifood more
generally—we actually have an agrifood trade surplus with
Australia.
The hon. Gentleman quotes NFU Scotland, which has great people. I
have met Martin Kennedy personally twice in the last week, as
well as the Scottish Government to discuss the prospect of this
deal.
Let me reiterate: there will be no change in our standards as a
result of this trade deal. We are absolutely committed to no
compromise on our animal welfare, food safety or environmental
standards.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to rule out tariff-free access to
Australian agricultural products. There already is tariff-free
access through an autonomous tariff rate quota. I think he seeks
a rolling back of the trade arrangements we already have with
Australia.
The hon. Gentleman asked about ISDS. It is a live negotiation,
and there will be a chapter on investment. We are huge investors
in each other’s markets, and I remind him that the UK has never
lost an ISDS case.
However, the hon. Gentleman has serious questions to answer, too.
Never in 20 years has the SNP supported any trade deal done by
the UK or even by the EU, even though key sectors of the Scottish
economy, such as whisky, apparel and fisheries, are dependent on
our trade. SNP Members voted for a no-deal Brexit. They voted
against deals with our friends, such as Canada, South Korea and
South Africa. They did not support deals with Japan or Singapore.
Whatever assurances I have given him today, or whatever turns out
to be in the deal, I do not think it would make him and the SNP
support this deal. When it comes to trade, the SNP is
isolationist and against the best interests of Scotland.
(Buckingham) (Con)
With the proposed free trade agreement with Australia potentially
removing tariffs on all UK exports to Australia, does my right
hon. Friend agree that that will save businesses across the
United Kingdom millions of pounds—including in
Buckinghamshire—support jobs across the nation, boost exports on
products such as whisky, gin, cars and cheeses, and bring huge
benefits to our agriculture sector?
I know how important my hon. Friend’s agriculture sector is in
Buckingham, and I can say that the deal we are trying to secure
will be very beneficial to exporters of whisky, biscuits, cars,
cheese, apparel, ceramics and gin, including gin makers in his
constituency such as Foxdenton, Bucks Brothers and Butlers Cross.
(Richmond Park) (LD)
To support its agricultural industry, Australia has the highest
rate of deforestation in the OECD and uses 71 hazardous
substances that are currently banned in the UK. It is also one of
the worst performers in tackling climate change, so how are the
UK Government using the offer of zero quota and zero tariff
access to persuade Australia to improve performance in this area?
We are the COP26 chairs this year, and we look forward to full
Australian participation. The Australian Government are
absolutely committed to combating climate change. There may even
be something on that in this agreement, which we are negotiating
at the moment. In terms of where Australia is overall on our
standards, it is worth bearing in mind that it does have high
animal welfare standards. It is ranked five out of five by the
World Organisation for Animal Health on its evaluation of the
performance of veterinary services, and it is worth pointing out
that Australian standards are high, but I repeat that there will
be no compromise and no change as a result of this free trade
agreement to our own food standards.
(Gloucester) (Con)
The Australian free trade agreement is a key step forward for
both global Britain and the Indo-Pacific pivot, as well as a
stepping stone towards a successful trans-Pacific partnership
application. There are wide opportunities for Britain with a key
member of the Commonwealth family, but does my right hon. Friend
agree, first, that hormone-injected beef is illegal in this
country, wherever it comes from? Secondly, does he agree that a
combination of staggering the introduction of tariffs and
targeted DEFRA assistance will ensure that upland farmers do not
suffer in the alarmist way suggested by anti-free trade
Opposition parties?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hormone beef will remain
illegal, because we will not be changing our import standards. I
do not believe that this deal represents a fundamental threat to
UK farmers, and it certainly does not compromise our high
standards. As has already been pointed out, any changes for
sensitive goods, such as beef and lamb, can be staged. A typical
Australian free trade agreement has stages over 10, 12 or 15
years. He is right that there is an opportunity here: a
springboard to CPTPP, which I know he understands well as our
trade envoy to many parts of south-east Asia.
(Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
Farmers in my constituency produce first-class beef to the
highest standards both environmentally and in terms of animal
welfare, at considerable cost to the family farm. Does the
Minister think it is fair to pitch these farmers against
Australian farmers and their intensively produced imports, with
lesser standards and great environmental impact?
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. In fact, I have met the
Ulster Farmers Union twice in the past week to discuss these
issues in particular. I met Diane Dodds, the Northern Ireland
Economy Minister yesterday, and I am meeting , the Northern
Ireland Agriculture Minister, later today, so we are doing
extensive outreach within Northern Ireland.
I would point out to the hon. Lady the huge opportunities for the
Northern Irish agriculture sector. The very first beef exported
to the United States last year came from Foyle Food Group in
Northern Ireland. There are great opportunities for companies
such as Moy Park as well in Northern Ireland to be able to export
more. We are absolutely confident of being on the front foot, and
ensuring that Northern Ireland also benefits from our free trade
agreements, as it is written into the Northern Ireland protocol,
and is able to sell more of its high quality meat into markets
all around the world, including to the CPTPP 11.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
Free trade has mutual economic benefits, for not just producers,
as we have been discussing, but consumers, who get more choice.
We must not lose sight of that. As the Minister said, the
understanding is that the proposed free trade agreement with
Australia would be a gateway to joining the CPTPP, which is a
high-standards free trade agreement of 11 Pacific nations. Does
he agree that doing so will mean lower tariffs for British
exports to those markets, which will be an incredibly beneficial
economic opportunity for British businesses?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the CPTPP. He is also right
to focus on consumers, who are a vital part of our trade agenda.
Under the CPTPP, 95% of tariffs between members will be removed.
We already do £110 billion-worth of trade with the CPTPP. It has
very liberal rules of origin, gold-standard data and digital
rules, a small and medium-sized enterprise chapter, and very
favourable conditions for business visas as well. It will be a
great agreement for the UK, and a key stepping stone to get there
is this free trade agreement with our great friends in Australia.
(Arfon) (PC)
In an answer to me last Wednesday, the Prime Minister lectured
Welsh farmers that they should be selling their beef and lamb to
China and the United States. He seemed unaware of one minor
detail: that we do not have a trade deal with either country.
When will Welsh families be able to sell their lamb and beef to
China and the United States, and what should Welsh farming
families do in the meantime as the Government trash their income
with this bad Australia deal?
Again, we have done extensive outreach in Wales in recent times.
I have met twice with both NFU Cymru and the Farmers’ Union of
Wales. I also met with the Welsh Minister just yesterday. There are already British exports of
beef and lamb to China, and of beef to the United States. I
mentioned the first consignment of beef arriving last year.
Getting our lamb into the United States is one of the key
priorities of our trade agenda moving forward, but the China
example shows that we do not always have to have a free trade
agreement to be able to open doors for our high-quality
agricultural produce. We have opened doors for British beef into
Japan and British pork into Taiwan in recent years as well.
(Stockton South) (Con)
Alongside our farmers, car manufacturers such as Nissan play a
key role in constituencies such as mine, helping to secure
high-skilled jobs and to create new opportunities for people
across Stockton South and the north-east. In 2019, Nissan UK
exported around 10,000 cars to Australia and another 10,000 in
2020. What impact might the free trade agreement with Australia
have on UK car manufacturers such as Nissan?
My hon. Friend is right: 10,000 cars go from Sunderland alone
each year to Australia. That is a big volume of cars and a big
amount of receipts as well. Cars make up just under 8% of all UK
exports to Australia. They currently attract a 5% tariff. We are
looking to reduce or remove that tariff in the agreement, and I
look forward to making progress precisely on that issue to bring
joy to his constituents soon.
(East
Lothian) (Alba)
Over 200 years ago during the highland clearances, people were
shamefully replaced by sheep, for landlords’ profits. Now this
trade deal threatens the supplanting of those sheep by cheap
imports, for Tory dogma. What does it say about the Tory
Government that they do not even care about Scottish sheep, let
alone Scottish crofters and farmers?
Well, let me say a few things about that. We have to understand
the existing trade flows in beef and lamb from Australia. We have
to understand the beef prices. Production costs in some of those
Asian markets are twice those in the UK, which makes it very
competitive for Australia to sell into markets such as Japan and
Korea, where the domestic production price of beef, for example,
is twice that in the UK. The Australian lamb quota for the UK is
not even fully used at the moment.
(Guildford) (Con) [V]
Compromising on the high food standards we enjoy here in the UK
must never be allowed; that is something on which we must never
compromise. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a free trade
agreement with Australia will not allow hormone-fed beef into the
UK, and that it will never be allowed to enter the UK under any
free trade agreement?
I can absolutely confirm that hormone beef will not be allowed
into this country, and there will be no compromise, according to
the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I stood on in December
2019—no compromise on our high standards of animal welfare, food
safety and the environment—but that does not prevent us from
importing produce from Australia. We already receive Australian
beef and lamb. It is high quality, and I believe strongly that
Australia will continue to sell good, high-quality produce to
this country, which of course must continue to meet our unchanged
import standards.
(North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I recognise that the Minister is keen to highlight new markets
for UK agrifood producers. However, the EU will remain by far the
UK’s largest partner in food exports and imports. To what extent
will any free trade agreement with Australia complicate or even
preclude a UK-EU veterinary agreement on sanitary and
phytosanitary issues, which surely should be a greater priority
for the Government to assist UK food exporters and to address
some of the tensions around the Northern Ireland protocol?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He is right that
the EU will remain a large and important trading partner for us,
particularly in agriculture. On his question about what impact an
agreement with Australia would have, look, there will be no
change to our standards as a result of the FTA—no change to our
import standards. It should not have any impact on the EU.
We already have a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU,
which is the trade and co-operation agreement, and I should point
out that the EU has an extensive veterinary agreement with New
Zealand. That agreement is of great interest in terms of it
recognising the equivalence of New Zealand’s veterinary outcomes.
I do not see any danger in a free trade agreement with Australia
with respect to being able to maintain our trade with the EU.
(Keighley) (Con)
Without doubt, farming is one of Britain’s finest industries, and
we all want to ensure that British food production has the best
opportunities available to it, so will my right hon. Friend
explain the role that the newly created Trade and Agriculture
Commission will play in scrutinising the free trade agreement?
Will he also comment on the opportunities the FTA will create in
Australia for our British food producers, as well as in the wider
Asia-Pacific?
My hon. Friend is right: this is about opportunity for the UK
overall, and specifically for agriculture. It is a gateway to
joining CPTPP. New trade deals will bring new export
opportunities to British farmers. Global demand for beef and lamb
is soaring. We should be wanting to fill part of that global
demand. Meat consumption is projected to rise nearly 73% by 2050,
particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.
(York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I simply do not understand the Government’s logic: good-quality
British farming undermined, high animal welfare standards
compromised, jobs and livelihoods bartered away—all for no
financial gain to British farmers, but at significant cost to our
climate. Will the Minister assure me that he will not sign any
trade deal with Australia until he has satisfactorily answered
the five challenges that Minette Batters of the National Farmers
Union has set out today, which have the full support of
farmers—first protecting their interests, rather than his own?
I have already spoken about climate and the Australian
Government’s commitment to the Paris accord, which we warmly
welcome. We work very well together with Australia on
environmental issues. On standards, I have already answered:
there will be no compromise on our standards. May I say something
about Australian animal welfare standards, as they sometimes get
a little maligned in the press? They are ranked five out of five
by the body concerned, the World Organisation for Animal
Health—the OIE. Australia already sells naturally-grown beef and
lamb into the UK. Our import standards will remain the same after
the deal as before. For example, any hormone-grown beef would not
meet our import standards.
(High Peak) (Con)
Businesses across the High Peak would welcome a trade deal with
Australia, and the opportunities and jobs that that would bring.
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the hill farmers of the Peak
District, who, as we all know, produce the world’s best quality
lamb, that their interests will be safeguarded and that the
Government remain committed to the UK’s world-leading animal
welfare standards, food standards and environmental protections?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I do not know of a bigger
champion of his local farmers in the High Peak than him. He is
right to say that there are opportunities here in exporting for
his local farmers. I have already mentioned the US, where British
lamb is currently not allowed in at all. Again there is big,
fast-growing Asian demand for high-quality meat and the UK will
be seeking a piece of the action by joining CPTPP, which I know
will bring benefit to his excellent local farmers.
(Lanark and
Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
A huge number of constituents have written to me with deep
concerns that the Government will sell out our standards for a
trade deal. Although the UK is a world leader in sustainable
farming and high animal welfare standards, Australian agriculture
lags far behind. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, the Trade Justice Movement and Compassion in World
Farming have voiced concerns that a deal with Australia would
“betray the public, farmers and animals”.
Chlorine-washed chicken, sow crates and battery-caged hens are
all banned in the UK but are common practice in Australia. The
Government have repeatedly promised that food standards will not
be lowered in any trade negotiations, but can the Minister give a
cast-iron guarantee and promise us that this tariff deal will
guarantee that goods made to a lower standard will not be
imported to the UK?
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and there is a cast-iron
guarantee that our standards will not be compromised on. She is
an SNP Member, so may I say to her that it would be high time for
the SNP to start thinking about whether it will ever back any
trade deals? It never backed any trade deals promoted by the
European Union, let alone by the UK, and the SNP aspires to
rejoin the EU. On Australian standards, she might want to have a
word with RSPCA Australia. I have already pointed out that
Australian animal health standards are rated five out of five.
Australia has also banned some practices that are not banned in
the EU, such as the castration of chickens or the production of
foie gras. So if she sat down with the RSPCA Australia, it might
give her a robust view of how good Australian animal welfare
standards are.
(Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
May I commend my right hon. Friend on the trade deals that have
been secured so far? Can he confirm that all these trade deals
and the proposed one with Australia will add value to the UK
economy without compromising existing trading arrangements with
high-value, mature markets such as the EU, which are crucial to
exporters in my constituency?
My hon. Friend is right on that and he is right to highlight that
this is not an either/or; this is not either we have trade with
the EU or we have trade with non-EU trading partners. It is
absolutely our objective, going back to the manifesto he and I
were both elected on, to have 80% of UK trade to be covered by
free trade agreements within three years. That includes the EU,
but it also includes new trading partners. CPTPP represents 13%
of GDP—that would rise to 16% when the UK joined- and it crosses
four continents, including old friends such as Australia, Canada,
Japan, Singapore and New Zealand, as well as growing markets such
as Vietnam and Mexico, where there are great opportunities for us
to sell more UK agricultural produce and other things into.
(Luton South) (Lab)
When I met farmers in Luton South, they stressed to me the
importance of trade deals not undercutting our food and animal
welfare standards. In Australia, live farm animals can be
transported over land for slaughter for up to 48 hours without
rest—six times the limit that is currently allowed in Britain. On
the grounds of both ensuring a level, competitive playing field
and ensuring the humane treatment of farm animals, does the
Minister think it is appropriate to reduce tariffs to zero on
meat from animals that have been subject to that sort of cruelty?
I refer the hon. Lady back to the fact that Australia is highly
rated by independent bodies for its high quality of animal
health, rated five out of five by the World Organisation for
Animal Health, and our import standards would not change as a
result of this or any other free trade agreement.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
It seems that the animal welfare and food standards
scaremongering is out in full force again. Does my right hon.
Friend agree that given that Australia’s food standards are
better than the European Union’s and that its animal welfare is
equivalent to the United Kingdom’s, a free trade agreement with
us will have an absolutely negligible impact on our own high UK
standards?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we have said repeatedly,
there will be no compromise on our own standards. I agree that
Australia ranks very well overall. Obviously its standards are
different, but overall its animal welfare standards rank
extremely highly—five out of five. As I said, it banned practices
that are prevalent in the EU, such as the castration of chickens
and the production of foie gras. It is not a simple like-for-like
comparison. The most important thing to note, though, is that our
import standards will not be changed as a result of the deal.
(Gower) (Lab)
I do just wonder whether the Minister is aware that New Zealand
and Australia are actually different countries. Farmers in Wales
are very concerned about this deal, and rightly so in Gower. What
reassurances can he give that unilateral trade liberalisation
with Australia will not set a precedent for future deals?
I am well aware that Australia and New Zealand are different
countries. As the parliamentary president of Conservative Friends
of Australia, I am pretty familiar with our two great friends and
allies on the other side of the world. I think the hon. Lady is
exaggerating the threat, as she sees it, from Australian
agriculture. Australia is already exporting hugely into Asia,
which is where our opportunities lie as well. When it comes to
British beef in our supermarkets, there is strong “buy British”
branding in the UK, and I do not see that changing overnight.
Some 81% of beef sold in the UK has either UK or other home
nations branding, and 100% in many of our major supermarkets. I
do not see that changing as a result of any trade deal.
(West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that these trade deals
should not be seen as the end of a conversation but the start of
an ongoing one. Can he assure my constituents in the Black
Country and businesses in the residual supply chain that, going
forward, they will be placed at the heart of his negotiating
strategy and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
for International Trade?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In any trade deal, we have to
look across the whole piece. His question is just about
agriculture, but we should look at the other opportunities for
the Black Country to benefit from—for example, 5% car tariffs and
the huge amount of machinery sold by this country into Australia,
including from Northern Ireland. There are other great
opportunities in, for example, financial services, gin, vodka and
cheese. Australian cheese tariffs can be as high as 21%. There
are big opportunities for UK exporters not limited just to
agriculture.
(North
Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Farmers in Scotland and across the UK fear this trade deal with
Australia could put them out of businesses and flood our
supermarkets shelves with inferior-quality products. I know that
the Minister rejects that and does not recognise those fears as
being valid, so can he explain why it seems that our farmers and
consumers simply do not understand how fabulous this deal is, or
could it be that the Government are being disingenuous about the
impact this deal will have on our farmers and our food?
The hon. Lady used the word “disingenuous”, but I notice that,
while she talks a good game about supporting British meat
farming, her neighbouring SNP council, South Ayrshire Council,
put out a tweet just recently encouraging residents to eat 75%
less red meat. She cannot have it both ways: she cannot be
encouraging less red meat consumption and then complaining about
a trade deal that she thinks will import a lot more of it. I
remind her that Scotland will benefit very strongly from this
deal. I notice, again, that we do not hear anything from the SNP
about Scotch whisky and the huge amount of other Scottish goods
that we are selling in Australia through this deal.
(Gedling) (Con)
Mr Speaker, the deep historical relationship that we have with
Australia is perhaps exemplified by the fact that your Chair is a
gift from Australia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this
agreement is an opportunity to deepen the relationship with our
kith and kin in Australia and should be celebrated and championed
and not denigrated?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have relatives right the
way across Australia. My aunt emigrated there—I cannot remember
what they were called. Was it the ten bob poms?
Mr Speaker
The ten pound poms.
The ten pound poms! Thank you, Mr Speaker. My aunt emigrated
there in what must have been the late ‘50s. I have relatives
there; many of us have relatives there. We have an incredibly
strong and close relationship with Australia. It is not just
about family and kinship; it runs across defence, security,
culture and sport, and also trade. Australia is a major country
when it comes to promoting global free trade. That is exactly the
right place for this country to be in as well.
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
There is concern from farmers in Wales and across the UK who face
the potential of losing out from an unlevel playing field as a
result of this deal. Will the Minister publish a rigorous
economic assessment of cumulative impacts on our farming
communities if zero-tariff and zero-quota deals are agreed not
only with Australia, but with other countries such as New
Zealand, Canada, Brazil and others?
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In the past week, I have
met twice with NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales to
discuss a particular point. Before each negotiation, we publish a
scoping assessment, which, obviously, does not have any idea what
may or may not be in the deal. It looks at the concept of the
deal. We then publish an impact assessment, which we will be
doing later this year, when we can see the text of the deal. We
will be involving Parliament, in the way that we did when we set
up the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and that will inform
that debate going forward. That is the right way to proceed and I
am confident that our scrutiny arrangements are absolutely
robust.
(Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
A free trade agreement between the UK and Australia is something
that I welcome, as it can be of huge benefit to both our
countries. We are the closest of friends and share so much in
common. However, I share the concerns of farmers in Cumbria and
across the UK that the FTA might damage our farming sector. It is
important that Parliament is able to scrutinise these
FTAs—something that is not happening with this deal. The
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process is insufficient
and the much-welcomed Trade and Agriculture Commission that we
all fought for is now not currently constituted and is therefore
not looking at this deal. Will the Government commit to
meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of this agreement and act to
reconstitute the Trade and Agriculture Commission immediately,
and also consider tariff-rate quotas as a sensible way of
safeguarding the agreement?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is hugely
knowledgeable of this sector, especially in relation to
agriculture, and I respect that. I am pleased that he welcomes
the deal overall. The deal is not done yet, which is the first
important thing to recognise. There is no text in front of us to
scrutinise. The reconstituted Trade and Agriculture Commission
will be set up soon and definitely in good time to scrutinise
this deal. When it comes to safeguards, again that will be
specified in the free trade agreement, but typically it will
allow either party temporarily to increase tariffs or to suspend
liberalisation in the event of an unexpected or unforeseen
substantial increase in imports. Again, it is normal that, in a
free trade agreement, those safeguards are in place.
(Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Islington South and
Finsbury () said, I am not a member of a right-wing think
tank; I am the son of a farmer and I represent a farming
constituency. Nevertheless, I am very supportive of any trade
deal with Australia that maintains a fair and level playing
field. Will my right hon. Friend set out what exact role the
Trade and Agriculture Commission will play in making sure that
that is the case?
I thank my hon. Friend, not least for his expertise in this
sector. The role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is set
out in statute in both the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Trade Act
2021. We are expecting it to be set up soon, and we also have to
respond to the report from the original Trade and Agriculture
Commission set up last summer. I would expect it to be a panel of
experts who will provide this Parliament—both Houses—with expert
insight into the terms of this or any other free trade agreement,
particularly in relation to agriculture and standards.
(Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Does the Minister appreciate that doing this deal with Australia
would wreck the UK’s reputation on environmental issues, since
Australia has the highest rate of deforestation in the OECD,
driven by the livestock industry, and Australian agriculture uses
71 highly hazardous substances that are banned in the UK,
including neonicotinoids and hormone injections for beef? Does he
think losing that reputation is a price worth paying for this
trade deal?
I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s question, and again I
repeat the fact that the SNP has never supported any trade deal
so I am slightly doubtful that whatever reassurances I give her
will make her change her mind. However, I say again that there
will be no compromise on the UK’s food safety, animal welfare and
environmental standards in relation to this or any other free
trade agreement. Hormone-injected beef will not be allowed into
this country. It is not allowed into this country today; our
standards will be unchanged and it will not be allowed in the
future. Australia does sell us beef and lamb, however, and I
expect that will continue under this agreement.
(South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has said, global demand for lamb and beef
is rising rapidly, particularly for British meats around the
Asian-Pacific market. Does he therefore agree that the free trade
agreements that he has already made and is currently pursuing are
creating fantastic opportunities for British farmers, as
confirmed by Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers
Union, in her email to us earlier today?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about opportunities;
this is about opportunities for using UK free trade agreements to
enter fast-growing markets around the world—the opportunity
provided by the gateway of joining the CPTPP, a high-standards
free trade agreement of 11 Pacific nations. However, we are not
just waiting for free trade agreements; we are using talks on
market access to make sure that our agricultural produce gets
sold into the likes of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and others using
our joint economic and trade committee, and making sure that,
wherever possible, we can meet the growing demand for
high-quality meat products in particular in Asian markets. I said
earlier that meat consumption is projected to rise by nearly 73%
by 2050; the vast majority of that will be in those fast-growing
Asian markets.
