The Secretary of State for International Trade ()
I wish to make a statement on the new UK-Australia free trade
agreement secured by our Prime Ministers this Tuesday. We have
agreed a truly historic deal, which is the first negotiated from
scratch by the United Kingdom since leaving the European Union.
This gold-standard agreement shows what the UK is capable of as a
sovereign trading nation: securing huge benefits such as
zero-tariff access to Australia for all British goods and
world-leading provisions for digital and services, while making
it easier for Brits to live and work in Australia.
The agreement also paves the way for the UK’s accession to the
vast market covered by the comprehensive and progressive
agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, coupling us with some of
the world’s largest and fastest growing economies worth £9
trillion in global gross domestic product. Our Australia deal
shows that global Britain is a force for free and fair trade
around the world. We believe in 21st-century trade. We do not see
it as a zero-sum game like our critics, who doubt we can compete
and win in the global marketplace. We want to be nimble, positive
and open to new ideas, talent and products, without sacrificing
our sovereignty.
We have laid out the core benefits of this deal in the agreement
in principle document. It means that £4.3 billion-worth of goods
exports will no longer have to pay tariffs to enter the
Australian market, from Scotch whisky and Stoke-on-Trent ceramics
to the 10,000 cars we currently export from the north of England.
Meanwhile, we will enjoy greater choice and top value in Aussie
favourites such as wine, swimwear and biscuits. Young Brits under
the age of 35 will be able to live and work in Australia for up
to three years with no strings attached. Our work and mobility
agreement goes beyond what Australia agreed with Japan or the US,
making it much easier for Brits to live and work in Australia.
We have agreed strong services and digital chapters that secure
the free flow of data and the right for British lawyers and other
professionals to work in Australia without needing to requalify.
We have secured access to billions of pounds in Government
procurement, which would benefit businesses such as Leeds-based
Turner and Townsend, which is contracted to expand the Sydney
Metro.
This deal promotes high standards, with the first animal welfare
chapter in an Australian trade deal, as well as strong provisions
on climate change, gender equality and development. On
agriculture, it is important that we have a proper transition
period. That is why we have agreed 15 years of capped tariff-free
imports from Australia, which means that Australian farmers will
only have the same access to the UK market as EU farmers in 2036.
We should use this time to expand our beef and lamb exports to
the CPTPP markets, which are expected to account for a quarter of
global meat demand by 2030. I do not buy this defeatist narrative
that British agriculture cannot compete. We have a high-quality,
high-value product that people want to buy, particularly in the
growing middle classes of Asia.
This Australia deal is another key step to joining the
trans-Pacific partnership, a market of 500 million people that
has high-standards trade, 95% tariff-free access and very strong
provisions in digital and services, which are of huge benefit to
Britain, the second largest services exporter in the world. It
covers the fastest growing parts of the world, where Britain
needs to be positioned in the coming decades. While some look to
the past and cling to static analysis based on what the world is
like today, we are focused on the future and what the world will
be like in 2030, 2040 and 2050.
Of course, Parliament will have its full opportunity to
scrutinise this agreement. Our processes are in line with those
of other parliamentary democracies, such as Canada and New
Zealand; the Trade and Agriculture Commission will play a full
role, providing expert and independent advice; and the House can
rest assured that this deal upholds our world-class standards,
from food safety and animal welfare to the environment.
Following the agreement in principle, we will finalise the text
of the full FTA agreement, which will then undergo a legal scrub
before being presented to Parliament, alongside an economic
impact assessment. I look forward to further scrutiny from the
Select Committee on International Trade and the Chair of the
Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
This deal means we have now struck agreements with 68 countries
plus the EU, securing trade relations worth £744 billion as of
last year. The deal with our great friend and ally Australia is
just the start of our new post-Brexit trade agreements. It is
fundamentally about what kind of country we want Britain to be.
Do we want to be a country that embraces opportunity, looks to
the future, and believes its industries can compete and that its
produce is just what the world wants? Or do we accept the
narrative some peddle that we need to stay hiding behind the same
protectionist walls that we had in the EU, because we cannot
possibly compete and succeed? To my mind, the answer lies in free
trade. Our country has always been at its best when it has been a
free-trading nation. This deal is a glimpse into Britain’s
future—a future where we are a global hub for digital and
services, where our high-quality food and drink and manufactured
goods are enjoyed across the world, and where we are open to the
best that our friends and allies have to offer. That is what this
deal represents, and I commend this statement to the House.
10:39:00
(Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement
and for publishing the outline agreement at quarter to 1 last
night—nothing screams confidence in the deal you have negotiated
like slipping it on to your website after midnight. I will not
address every element of the deal she has highlighted today. On
some, we will have to reserve judgment until we have seen the
full treaty text and the economic impact assessment. After all,
this was the Secretary of State who agreed a brand new Japan deal
that turned out, according to her own figures, to deliver lower
benefits for Britain than the one we already had.
However, the one area of this deal on which we can reach a
verdict now is the terms agreed on agriculture. In doing so, I am
not going to hold the Secretary of State to some impossible
ideal; I am simply going to hold her to the past commitments she
has made to protect our standards and our farming industry. Let
us start with standards. She said last October that she would not
sign a trade deal that would allow British farmers to be undercut
by cheap imports produced using practices that are allowed in
other countries but banned in the UK. She called that an
important principle, so let me give her just 10 examples of such
practices in Australia: allowing slurry to pollute rivers; using
growth-promoting antibiotics; housing hens in barren cages;
trimming their beaks with hot blades; mulesing young lambs;
keeping pregnant pigs in sow stalls; branding cattle with hot
irons; dehorning and spaying them without pain relief; and
routinely transporting livestock for 48 hours; and doing that
without their having rest, food or water. All those practices are
in common use in Australia, but banned in Britain. Yet, under the
deal she has signed, the meat from farms that use those practices
will come into our country tariff-free, undermining British
standards, undercutting British farmers and breaking the promises
made to the British people.
So much for protecting our standards, what about protecting our
farming industry? The Secretary of State said last November:
“We have no intention of ever striking a deal that doesn’t
benefit farmers”.
Yet the deal she has just signed will allow Australia’s farm
corporations to export more than 60 times the amount of beef next
year as they exported to Britain last year before they face a
single penny in tariffs. It is the equivalent of immediate,
unlimited tariff-free trade, which is why when the Secretary of
State says that Australian farmers will be in the same position
as EU farmers after 15 years, she is talking nonsense. They will
be in exactly the same position from year one, but without the
requirement to meet EU standards. No wonder Australia’s former
negotiator at the World Trade Organisation said:
“I don’t think we’ve ever done as well as this. Getting rid of
all tariffs and quotas forever is virtually an unprecedented
result.”
Of course, he is right. When Japan and Korea negotiated their
deals with Australia, they set tariff-free allowances in year one
that allowed for a modest increase in the amount of beef
Australia had exported to them in the previous year—7% for Korea
and 10% for Japan. By comparison, the deal the Secretary of State
has just signed allows Australia to increase its exports of beef
by 6,000% without paying any tariffs. In the Government’s own
scoping paper last July we have it in black and white. That
increase in Australian exports will mean:
“A fall in output and employment”
in the UK’s agricultural sector. [Interruption.] The right hon.
Lady says it is wrong, but I am just quoting her Department. So
British farmers are to be left worse off as a result of her deal.
This is another broken promise, with more to come when New
Zealand, Canada, Brazil and America demand the same deal for
their exports. Let me be absolutely clear. We want good trade
deals with other countries. We want trade deals that will create
jobs, support our industries, and strengthen our economy and our
recovery. But, to be blunt about it, we want the kind of results
from our trade deals that Australia has just achieved from us.
The Secretary of State told the newspapers in April that she
would sit her inexperienced Australian counterpart in an
uncomfortable chair and show him how to play at this level.
I am afraid that this deal has exposed the Secretary of State as
the one who is not up to the job. Britain needs and deserves
better.
We need someone who will keep the promises they make to the
public and to Parliament; someone who will promote British
standards around the world, not allow them to be undermined;
someone who will protect our farming and steel industries, not
throw them to the wolves; someone who will get the results for
their country that the Australian Trade Minister has delivered
for his. The Secretary of State has shown that she is not that
person, so there is only one question that matters today: will
she guarantee to give Parliament not just a debate but a binding
vote on the deal that she has agreed with Australia so that we
can reject the terms she has agreed on farming and send someone
else back to the table to get a better deal for our country?
Well, it is not a surprise that the right hon. Lady is
relentlessly negative about the opportunities of the Australia
deal and the trans-Pacific partnership. I am surprised that she
is known as the shadow Secretary of State for International
Trade; she should be known as the shadow Secretary of State
against international trade, because there is not a single trade
deal that she supports.
The right hon. Lady had nothing to say about the tariff-free
access for all British goods—from cars to whisky—that we are
going to secure under this agreement. She had nothing to say
about the benefits for the under-35s of being able to live and
work in Australia for three years with no strings attached. She
had nothing to say about digital and services, even though the UK
is the second largest services exporter in the world. Instead,
she talked about agriculture, which is a new interest for her; we
have not really heard her say much about it in the past.
Let me be clear: in year one, the cap on Australian beef exports
to the UK will be 35,000 tonnes. We currently import 230,000
tonnes from the EU, so the cap is 15% of what we currently import
from the EU. That is not the same access that the EU has; it is
only 15% of the access. In fact, Australian farmers will only
have the same access as the EU in 2036.
The right hon. Lady talks about animal welfare standards.
Australia has been rated five out of five in international
ratings on animal welfare standards. In many cases, those animal
welfare standards are higher than they are in the EU, but not
once did the right hon. Lady complain about the zero-tariff,
zero-quota deal from the EU. Not once has she talked about animal
welfare standards in the EU, apart from claiming that she likes
Danish pork. The reality is that the right hon. Lady simply wants
to stay in the EU. She does not want to look at future
opportunities, she is not interested in where Britain can go in
the future, and she is not interested in expanding Britain’s
trade and delivering more jobs in this country.
(North Thanet) (Con) [V]
I certainly do not intend to criticise my right hon. Friend—who
has clearly put a lot of work into this—without even beginning to
know the details of the deal that has been struck. It is clearly
the case that we need to strike agreements not only with
Australia but with the trans-Pacific partnership, Canada, the
United States and South America.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spent part of the G7
weekend firefighting the fall-out from a badly negotiated deal
over the Northern Ireland protocol, which demonstrates why
parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. I am pleased to hear that my
right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has said that
this deal will be the subject of a parliamentary debate. I
assume—perhaps she can confirm this—that that means that there
will also be a vote. When will the Trade and Agriculture
Commission be fully functioning and up and running, and when will
the impact assessments in relation to this deal be published?
I can tell my right hon. Friend that we have already put out
expressions of interest for serving on the Trade and Agriculture
Commission. That will be in place before we need to scrutinise
the agreement. The scrutiny of the agreement will take place when
we have reached the final signed agreement. That will be
presented to Parliament. In advance of that presentation, it will
be given to the International Trade Committee and to the Chairman
of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for
scrutiny. It will then go to Parliament and go through the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process, during which
MPs are able to block the deal if they do not support it. I
believe the deal I have negotiated is positive for the United
Kingdom and will command parliamentary support, but there is
always that option open to Members of Parliament.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
[V]
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her
statement.
For all the bluster, the Secretary of State knows that any deal
with Australia cannot even make a dent in the shortfall created
by the trading disaster of leaving the EU. The simple fact is
that we are doing much less trade now than we were before 1
January. This deal will take 15 years to deliver one 200th of the
benefits lost from EU membership—and that loss has already cost
Scotland’s economy around £4 billion and is projected to cost
every person £1,600 in red tape and barriers to trade.
The Secretary of State talks of whisky exports to Australia,
while ignoring the fact that the Brexit costs of goods for
distilleries have shot up by around 20%, and that is in addition
to lost trade. This deal cannot come close to mitigating those
costs or loss of sales. Fourteen of Scotland’s food and drink
organisations have written to the Secretary of State to say that
they have been ignored by this Government. They are Scotland’s
farmers, crofters, producers and manufacturers. They know that
they are being dragged underwater by yet another Westminster
Government who simply do not care. And for what—swimwear?
In the 1970s, the Tories officially called Scottish fishing
expendable, and they repeated that attitude on the way out of the
EU. Even the Tories in Scottish constituencies now show the same
contempt for Scottish agriculture. They have failed to back any
amendments to legislation that would protect UK standards in
trade negotiations or even public services.
Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the deal does not
include investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms that could
give corporations the right to sue Governments over actions that
affect their profits, thereby potentially leading to the
privatisation of public services such as the NHS or changes to
workers’ rights? How will she guarantee that no cut of
hormone-injected beef from Australia or food products treated
with pesticides and antibiotics will appear on our supermarket
shelves? She cannot, can she? Will she simply duck these
questions and prove, once again, that the only way to protect
Scotland’s business and consumers is through independence?
I was hoping that the SNP spokesman would welcome today’s
announcement about the Airbus-Boeing dispute and the fact that we
have continued to suspend the tariffs on Scotch whisky in a deal
with the US.
I have much more faith than the hon. Gentleman does in Scotland’s
beef and lamb industry. It is some of the best beef and lamb in
the world. I am excited about the opportunities in the
trans-Pacific partnership, which will be eating 25% of the
world’s meat by 2030. The hon. Gentleman should be looking
forward to those opportunities rather than harking back to the
time when we were members of the EU. He needs to look at where
the fast-growing markets of the future are; that is where
Scotland’s opportunities lie.
I can absolutely confirm that ISDS is not part of our trade
agreement with Australia, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that no
hormone-injected beef will be allowed into the UK.
(Redcar) (Con)
G’day, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State for this gold-standard trade deal
with our long-standing friends and allies. She will know that
Teesside has a long history of exporting to Australia—including
the Sydney Harbour bridge, which was moved from Dorman Long’s
Teesside steel plant. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this
trade deal will mean simpler trade for chemicals, cars and steel;
cheaper prices for my constituents; and easier travel to and from
Australia?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Teesside is absolutely set to
benefit from this deal. There will be a removal of tariffs on
products such as steel and chemicals—no British product will face
tariffs into Australia. The north-east is already incredibly
successful in exporting 10,000 cars to Australia every year. The
tariff on cars will be removed, allowing even more of our
fantastic exports down under.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Select Committee, .
(Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Tapadh leat, Mr Speaker. Some are saying that Australia has never
before had such good luck in a trade negotiation and are
wondering how this would have been different had the UK not been
at the table. They suspect that Canberra is running out of
champagne.
The reality is that in year one of the deal, UK farmers face the
arrival from Australia of more quantities of beef, sugar, lamb,
cheese and other dairy products than ever arrived in any year
from the EU. To make up for the Brexit damage, we would need 245
such deals, which are very risky to farming. There is a feeling
of unseemly haste with this deal. Incidentally, the EU would not
create such risks for its farmers. With all that in mind, and
given the need for scrutiny, will the International Trade
Secretary appear before our Select Committee in the next week to
10 days so that we can have a good to and fro and investigate the
issues before she signs the deal and Australia has her in
handcuffs?
It is interesting that the Chairman of the Select Committee
accuses me of haste. It is true that the EU is in the fourth year
of its negotiations with Australia, just as it takes a very long
time to negotiate any deal with any party. Fundamentally, the
EU’s instincts are not to open up its markets. That has cost
British business over the years, because we have not had access
to Australian and Pacific markets on the same terms as others.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will appear in front of his
Committee to answer questions prior to the signing. I am very
happy to give him any kind of briefing. As he knows, he will get
a copy of the signed trade agreement before anyone
else—[Interruption.] I am afraid I cannot understand the hon.
Gentleman’s gesticulations, because there is no sound. I think he
is very happy that I will appear before the Committee—that is the
message I am receiving.
As I have already said to the right hon. Member for Islington
South and Finsbury (), in none of the 15 years of the transition period
for beef and lamb access is the amount higher than that we
currently import from the EU. It is extraordinary that the Labour
party is happy with a zero tariff, zero quota deal with a
landmass that is much closer to the UK, but afraid of a country
that is 9,000 miles away. It seems to be one rule for its friends
in the EU, and another rule for everybody else.
Mr Speaker
It might help if the hon. Gentleman went on a British Sign
Language course.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this
agreement? As she will know, certain farming organisations have
expressed concern about this deal. Will she repeat once again
that there will be no reduction in the standards of food that
will be allowed to be offered for sale on the British market?
Further, will she invite those organisations to, rather than
express concern, work with and her Department to secure the best
possible outcome of the agreement she has achieved?
I thank my right hon. Friend. There are huge opportunities for
British products overseas. There is a growing global market for
these products. The vast majority of Australian beef and lamb
goes to the Asian markets, where prices are higher. The
opportunity for Welsh lamb and beef lies in getting better access
to those markets so that we too can benefit from those higher
prices. I welcome the opportunity to work with the farming
industry. I have already talked to the National Farmers Union
about how we can work closely together to promote British exports
and get more agriculture counsellors into those markets so that
we can realise the opportunities of this deal.
(Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
The Secretary of State just referred to the fact that Australia
is 9,000 miles away compared with the EU markets and the trade we
were doing with it. I would be grateful if she could confirm how
this deal will help the UK reduce its carbon emissions in
international trade. What will this deal do to help the
Government achieve their net zero goals by 2030?
I am pleased to say that this deal is the first that Australia
has signed that has specific references to our achieving our
climate change objectives. We are working very closely with the
Australian Government and other allies to reach net zero.
(North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on this deal. She has
now signed nearly 68 trade deals. Given the shadow Secretary of
State’s comments, I would love to know how she thinks that that
is not up to the job. While the doubters are still stuck in the
past, can my right hon. Friend reconfirm not only that this free
trade agreement paves the way to CPTPP membership for the UK, but
that membership of the CPTPP would provide untold opportunities
for our businesses by opening up access to 11 Pacific markets
worth £9 trillion. As a believer in free markets, that is
something that we cannot overlook.
We are expecting trade with those 11 countries to grow by 65% by
2030. The deal is a huge opportunity for the United Kingdom. The
country has very high standards in areas such as digital and
services where we are the second largest exporter in the world.
What we have agreed with Australia also covers the market access
negotiations for CPTPP, so this is very important stepping stone
for those broader opportunities that are in the trans-Pacific
partnership .
(Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Investor-state dispute settlement clauses allow multinational
corporations to take sovereign Governments to court simply for
acting in the best interests of their citizens. They have been
used to sue Governments for taking parts of their health services
back into public control, and by fossil fuel companies to
undermine vital environmental regulations. They make a mockery of
the idea that we are taking back control. Will the Minister
reassure the House that investor-state dispute settlement clauses
will be excluded from the UK-Australia negotiations, and will she
guarantee the House that there will be a full debate and
meaningful vote for MPs on this and all future agreements?
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of ISDS.
The fact is that those clauses are in trade agreements, and we
already have more than 60 ISDS clauses in various investment
agreements to protect British businesses from unfair actions by
overseas countries, such as the appropriation of property.
Furthermore, the UK has never ever lost an ISDS case, because we
are a country that follows the rules and implements our laws and
regulations in a fair way. In any case, there is not an ISDS
clause in the Australia trade deal.
(Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
The Snowdonia Cheese Company, which is based in Rhyl but also has
footprints in Deeside and Wrexham, is expanding 20% to 30% per
annum and is a north Walian success story, combining milk from
local farmers with brand Britain to rapidly expand its sales
overseas. Australia is a key market for Snowdonia cheese, and,
with tariffs lifted, the company stands to do even better. Will
my right hon. Friend visit Rhyl to celebrate with the company its
enthusiasm for a UK-Australia trade deal?
This deal is great for UK cheese companies. There is currently an
11% tariff on products such as Snowdonia cheese, which will be
removed as part of this deal. I would be delighted to visit the
company and celebrate its success. This is what we want to see.
Currently, only one in five of our food and drink companies
exports. There are huge opportunities overseas and we need to see
more and follow the lead of the Snowdonia Cheese Company.
(Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
There is grave concern across the farming industry not just about
this deal, but about the potential precedent that it sets for our
future deals with New Zealand, the United States, Brazil and
Canada. Will the Secretary of State agree as a matter of urgency
to publish an assessment of the amassed impact on our farming
communities if deals with all those other countries are agreed on
the same basis as that with Australia?
I am very clear that this deal does not set a precedent for other
agreements. The reason that we have agreed to this liberalisation
is that Australia is liberalising all of its trade with us,
including on goods, services, digital and mobility. This is an
agreement between two very like-minded partners that share the
same high standards and that believe in free trade. Of course, we
will be striking different sorts of agreements depending on how
much other partners are prepared to open up their markets.
(Bishop Auckland) (Con)
While some in this place hark back to a delightfully rose-tinted
past, I am pleased that Government Members are really looking to
the future. This is the first major trade deal we have signed
since we left the European Union. On that, does my right hon.
Friend agree with me that this is a fantastic example of how we
can use the opportunities available to us as a sovereign trading
nation to deliver for Bishop Auckland residents and for people
right across our nation?
This is our first from-scratch negotiated trade deal, and I think
we have shown here what we want to do as the United Kingdom. We
have gone further than the US or Japan did with Australia in
getting the ability for British workers to go to work and live in
Australia. We have achieved huge amounts on youth mobility, with
under-35s being able to go to Australia for three years with no
strings attached, and complete tariff-free access for British
goods, with gold standards in areas such as digital services and
technologies of the future, including artificial intelligence. I
think that benefits my hon. Friend’s constituency, but also the
entire United Kingdom.
(Central
Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Antimicrobial resistance is a major global health threat, which
led the EU and the UK to ban regular antibiotic use to promote
growth in farm animals in 2006. Australia continues to allow
antibiotics to be used as growth promoters, without any
requirement for farmers even to report multi-resistant bacterial
infections. How will the Trade Secretary prevent the import of
such antibiotic-fed meat to protect Scotland’s high food
standards, our farmers and our future health?
Let me be absolutely clear that we are not lowering our food
import standards as a result of this deal. We are absolutely
maintaining that, so no hormone-injected beef will be allowed
into the United Kingdom. Let me just be clear: all of the
questions coming from the Opposition side of the House seem to
imply that we need regulatory harmonisation with everybody we
trade with. That is the EU model; we have left the EU. We believe
that other countries should be in charge of their own rules and
regulations, and we should have the sovereignty to set our own
rules and regulations. What Opposition Members seem to be arguing
for is global regulatory harmonisation.
(Devizes) (Con) [V]
My constituency of Devizes is home to some of the best farmers in
the world, including the current Farmers Weekly beef farmer of
the year, James Waight of Enford farm, so I am very positive
about the opportunities for more exports of Wiltshire produce,
and I congratulate the Secretary of State on concluding this
deal. However, I am even more positive about the opportunity for
our farmers to have a bigger share of the UK market. We already
import three quarters of the food we eat in this country, and to
my mind that is too much, so can she reassure me that this deal
will not under-cut farmers in Wiltshire with cheap, low-quality
imports?
I know my hon. Friend believes in both beef and liberty, and I
can assure him that that is exactly what this deal delivers.
There are huge opportunities overseas for our beef farmers, and
that is what we are seeking to open up, of course. We opened up
the US market last year, and we now have beef going from England,
Wales and Northern Ireland into the United States. I agree with
him: I think there are huge opportunities for our farmers, freed
from the common agricultural policy, which has held them back,
and with a new pro-animal welfare, pro-environment policy here in
the United Kingdom.
(Warley)
(Lab)
Australia, like Canada, is one of our oldest and closest allies,
and many of us have family and friends there, so does the
Secretary of State share my concern that the anti-trade lobby
does not want us to do a trade deal with either of them, nor
indeed with the United States and Singapore for that matter? Has
she had any indication from the anti-trade lobby about which
countries it thinks we can and should do trade deals with?
What a welcome voice from the Opposition Benches! If only the
right hon. Gentleman could be promoted to a position on the Front
Bench—[Hon. Members: “Make him leader!”] Or even leader; that is
a good idea. If that happened, we might see a more sensible,
pro-growth, pro-trade policy on the Opposition Benches. It seems
to me that the only group the Opposition want us to do a deal
with is the EU. In fact, they want us to rejoin the EU. That is
the strong message I am getting from the Opposition.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and congratulate
her and her team on this achievement. The point about free trade,
as she said in her statement, is that it is not a zero-sum game;
it can be a win-win for us and for Australia, and for exporters
such as the ceramics firms in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent and for
consumers such as my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Can
she confirm that, through this deal, Aussie favourites such as
wine—including Jacob’s Creek and Hardy’s—swimwear and
confectionery will be a much cheaper and that there will be more
choice for British consumers, saving more than £34 million in
year one?
My hon. Friend is right. The idea that a free trade deal is
simply about who wins and who loses is completely wrong. The
whole point is that Australia is an old friend of the United
Kingdom and we want to trade more with each other. We want to
give opportunities for our young people in both countries. We
want to give opportunities for our exporters and thus, all of us
can become more successful, have more jobs and more growth in
every local area, from ceramics to all the other industries, as
well as being able to get their hands on those fantastic
Australian goods such as swimwear and Tim Tams and, of course,
Australian wine, which I have been drinking quite a lot of this
week.
(East
Lothian) (Alba)
The Secretary of State has mentioned climate change in earlier
answers, but she has not said what assessment has been made of
increased greenhouse gas emissions because of shipping the
volumes of Australian beef and lamb that their acting Prime
Minister is salivating over. Has that assessment been done, or is
it anticipated that the price will be paid and offsetting will
come from a reduction in ferry and freight traffic in rural
parts, particularly in Scotland, which will pay the price as a
consequence of this?
I absolutely refute the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that Scottish
farmers are not going to benefit from this deal. This is a key
stepping stone to CPTPP. By 2030, CPTPP countries will be eating
25% of the world’s meat, and I want to make sure they are eating
Scottish beef and Scottish lamb. Of course we are absolutely
committed to our net zero target. The Australians are committed
to a net zero target, and we will make sure those targets are
achieved.
(Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for engaging with the International
Trade Committee, and I look forward to scrutinising the legal
text. Welsh beef, Welsh lamb, Welsh dairy, Welsh cheese and Welsh
agriproducts are wanted around the world, and my farmers and I
are confident that this trade deal and access to CPTPP will
benefit them. There are scaremongers bleating on the other side,
in an echo of the former Brexit debates, so will my right hon.
Friend reassure me and my farmers that they are at the heart of
our trade policy, not an afterthought?
Farming is absolutely at the heart of our trade policy. That is
why we have worked to get the US market open to British beef.
Yesterday we announced that British poultry will now be going
into Japan for the first time. There are huge opportunities in
these markets, which generally have higher prices than here in
the United Kingdom, and that is where the future of global
Britain lies. This is about supporting our farmers with their
fantastic products, getting them out into world markets and
learning from others with ideas and innovation, not closing
ourselves off to the future, which is what the Opposition seem to
be advocating.
(Ceredigion)
(PC) [V]
The Secretary of State makes much of the so-called transition
period secured for farmers, but information on the Australian
Government website suggests that the tariff-rate quota for
Australian beef will increase nearly tenfold immediately, and
that the deal will see the quota for Australian lamb nearly
doubled in the first year. If she is serious about wanting
farmers to compete and succeed, why, at the very first attempt,
has she conceded to such a drastic and immediate increase in
tariff-rate quotas that imperils the future of Welsh agriculture
before domestic post-EU agricultural policies are even in place?
The fact is that there is very little Australian beef imported at
the moment. What makes much more sense is to compare the amount
in year one, 35,000 tonnes, with the amount that we currently
import from the EU, which is 230,000 tonnes of beef. I do not
remember the hon. Gentleman complaining when we agreed a
tariff-free, quota-free deal with the EU, which is exporting far
more beef and lamb than under our agreement with Australia. In
fact, the likelihood is that, over time, some of those Australian
exports will simply replace exports from the EU.
(Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I welcome the prospect of a productive trade agreement with our
closest friends in Australia, but it must be right for both
partners. As a vet who has worked on farms in the UK and
Australia, I very much welcomed confirmation from the Prime
Minister yesterday in the House that this deal will be the first
ever to incorporate high animal welfare standards. Will my right
hon. Friend reassure the farmers and food producers in Cumbria
and across the UK that tariff rate quotas and animal welfare
clauses will be used in the agreement to safeguard it, and that
the Trade and Agriculture Commission will be constituted in time
to allow for meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of this deal, so
that we get it right for farmers, producers and not least animals
in both our countries?
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that there will be an animal
welfare chapter in the agreement. We have published the outcomes
of that in the AIP document that we have put online today. I can
also confirm that there will be a transition period of 15 years,
which will give our farmers significant time to work on this and
to expand exports into the important CPTPP markets. I recognise
my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area and would very much
welcome his engagement as we approach the signing process.
(Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It always amazes me how a legion of Ministers come to the
Dispatch Box and pretend they are great independent-minded
Eurosceptics and always have been. The reality is that most of
them toed the line, voted for remain and then did a bit of quick
backpedalling afterwards, like the Minister at the Dispatch Box
today. While we are on the subject, she said that the deal would
be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. Does that means it
will be subject to primary legislation or not?
The deal will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny—exactly
the same parliamentary scrutiny that the EU deal was.
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
I thank this outstanding Secretary of State for coming to the
House to update us on the free trade agreement. Does she agree
that all free trade agreements result in lower consumer prices
and great opportunities for exporters, make industry more
efficient and allow developing countries to develop? In a way, I
agree with the previous questioner: let us have a debate on the
Australian free trade agreement, and let those of us on the
Government Benches vote in favour of it, and let Opposition
Members decide whether they believe in Britain or not.
I fear we already know the answer to whether they believe in
Britain or not. This deal will go through the proper
parliamentary scrutiny process, through the Constitutional Reform
and Governance Act 2010 process, as all international treaties
do. I concur with my hon. Friend that the idea that Britain’s
future should be in closing ourselves off to the rest of the
world—in putting up high-tariff barriers, not innovating, not
learning and not sharing ideas—is the recipe for penury, not the
recipe for success.
(Argyll and
Bute) (SNP)
My constituency overwhelmingly rejected Brexit, because we knew
what it would do to our farming and fishing industry. Is the
Secretary of State concerned that the Australian farmers are
hailing this as a huge victory, while Scottish farmers see it as
a complete betrayal? Will she therefore explain to the hill
farming communities in my constituency how flooding the UK market
with cheap, factory-farmed, inferior produced meat is the golden
opportunity that the Prime Minister promised that this deal would
be?
I think the hon. Gentleman’s farmers deserve better than the
ludicrous scaremongering that he has been putting forward.
(Wycombe) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all her officials on this
excellent deal. Is not the quality of this deal and the speed
with which it has been agreed a testament to what can be achieved
by high-standards nations when they come together properly as
partners and negotiate in good faith? Does she agree that this
augurs very well for our accession to CPTPP?
I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK is now open
to doing liberalising trade deals around the world. We believe
that our farmers, our manufacturers and our services companies
are able to compete successfully. We also believe that we are
better when we are able to share ideas and trade with our friends
right across the globe. I can assure him that this is only the
start of our free trade agreement programme. We are working on
CPTPP accession. We are working on deals with other countries
around the world. We are going to make global Britain a success
and make the UK a hub for trade in all areas, from food and drink
to manufacturing, services and digital.
(Bedford)
(Lab) [V]
Can the Secretary of State confirm that her proposed deal will
reduce tariffs on meat produced using growth-promoting
antibiotics, which UK farmers are banned from using? If so, how
is that consistent with the repeated promises that she and other
Ministers have made that our farmers will not be undermined by
food produced to lower standards than they are required to meet?
I reject the argument that standards in Australia are low. The
hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that we should trade only with
countries that have exactly the same regulations and rules as the
United Kingdom. That is frankly a ludicrous proposition that
would lead to us trading with virtually no one. Let me be clear:
we are not reducing our import standards and we are not allowing
hormone-injected beef into the United Kingdom.
(Rother
Valley) (Con)
I join other Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend on
this great deal. I also thank her for making the first
scratch-built deal with a Commonwealth country, Australia being a
key member of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has historically
been neglected by this country over the past few decades. Does
she agree that now we can do our own free trade deals outside the
European Union, we should focus our efforts on the Commonwealth
and keep maintaining our great ties with the Commonwealth
nations? We have a great deal of history and cultural issues
together, and trade will bring us all together even better.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These are like-minded
countries that we have long historical links with. They are our
friends and family. I am pleased to say that immediately after
this statement I will be meeting the New Zealand Trade Minister
to hopefully make further progress on that deal.
(North Down) (Alliance) [V]
Post Brexit, the EU remains our biggest export market by far. I
believe that the overarching trade priority must be to address
the remaining non-tariff barriers with the EU beyond the trade
and co-operation agreement, including around sanitary and
phytosanitary rules. Can the Secretary of State assure me that
the SPS chapter of this Australia deal, based around equivalence
rather than alignment, will not compromise the UK’s options
regarding any future EU veterinary agreements? I believe that it
will.
The New Zealanders have a veterinary agreement with the EU, but
they also have their own independent SPS policy. Let me be clear:
we are not dynamically aligning with the EU’s SPS policies. In
fact, our agreement in principle makes it very clear that both
Australia and the United Kingdom have their own independent SPS
regimes.
(North East
Bedfordshire) (Con)
There cannot be British citizens in the Australian Parliament but
there are Australians in this Parliament.
I, for one, commend my right hon. Friend for securing this deal.
She will understand that one of its strategic benefits is to set
the basis for a global arrangement on standards in services. What
progress did she make towards that strategic objective?
My hon. Friend is right. In this deal, we have agreement on the
free flow of data, advanced provisions on the mobility of
professionals, recognition of qualifications and a whole host of
positive arrangements in areas such as investment and
procurement. By Australia and the United Kingdom working together
to set standards alongside other allies, we can help challenge
unfair trade practices across the world and make sure that we
stand up for good, rules-based trade in areas where the UK leads.
(Strangford) (DUP)
While I welcome the deal as a signal of things to come when we
are unfettered from Europe as an entire nation, not just three
out of four regions, I still have grave concerns for our quality
lamb and beef sectors, particularly those in Northern Ireland,
which are so renowned for quality and high standards and which
depend on exports across the world. Last week the Secretary of
State, in reply to another question, referred to the contract
secured by Foyle Food Group. While it is good news that one
person has done that, there has to be more. Will the Secretary of
State give assurances over standards, such as the use of
antibiotics, which may be notably higher in meat from other
countries? Our standards in Northern Ireland are some of the best
in the world. We need to retain them.
Northern Ireland is a very successful exporter of agricultural
products, and we want to make sure that there are more
opportunities not only in the US market, which is now exported to
by Foyle Food Group, but right across the world, including
through the CPTPP.
(Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Secretary of State on this significant
achievement. She has also set an important precedent: as this
deal was done from scratch, it potentially sets the basis for all
our future trade agreements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
we must include in this agreement something missing from other
international free trade agreements around the world—we must
establish and maintain a fair and level playing field for UK
businesses employing UK people, particularly in the food and
farming sector?
I am pleased that our agreement with Australia will contain a
strong labour chapter, and also a small and medium-sized
enterprise chapter that will cut red tape on our fantastic SMEs
that want to export around the world, cutting their paperwork so
that they can get more of their fantastic goods, including, of
course, food and drink companies.
