Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what environmental considerations
influence their trade policy.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade
() (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government are committed to upholding the
UK’s high environmental standards in our trade policy. We
consider a wide range of environmental issues in our trade policy
and in what we are seeking to pursue in multilateral fora, as
well as under our new free trade agreements. This includes
upholding commitments in the Paris Agreement, maintaining our
right to regulate to meet net zero and, of course, co-operating
on issues from forests and fisheries to greenhouse gas emissions.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s trade strategy seems to aim to
increase trade with geographically distant countries, but this
does not make much environmental sense. Have the Government
conducted an assessment of their trade policies on harmful
climate emissions, by air or sea? Will they raise the
environmental impact of trade policies at COP 26?
(Con)
We will certainly raise the impact of trade policies at COP 26.
On the noble Baroness’s point about where our trade agreements
are being made, of course it might have been better if Australia
and New Zealand were close to Europe, but they are not. They are
important countries to make trade agreements with, and that
trumps the question of geography, in this case.
(Lab)
Would the Minister explain the process within government to audit
trade or other policies to ensure that climate catastrophe is
given priority in these considerations?
(Con)
The most effective audit we have is the deep scrutiny that noble
Lords give our trade agreements and trade policy. We have some of
the most advanced scrutiny mechanisms in the world, and noble
Lords do a good job of auditing us and holding us to account.
(LD)
Let us test that. On 14 September, the Commons Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs Committee said that the Government were kicking
the can down the road or “running the clock down” on the
establishment of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Can the
Government update us on when it will be established on a
statutory basis? For full scrutiny, will the Minister ensure that
the scrubbed legal texts of the Australia and New Zealand deals
will go to the statutory Trade and Agriculture Commission, so
that it can fulfil its duty and report to us, before we are asked
to ratify those agreements?
(Con)
My Lords, as soon as I heard the magic words “Trade and
Agriculture Commission” being mentioned by the noble Lord, I
thought he was going to congratulate me on that fact that the
Government have today published our response to the report of the
Trade and Agriculture Commission on how best to advance the
issues of British farmers, food producers and consumers in future
trade policy. As to his point, there is a very narrow difference
between the TAC that has been set up and the statutory TAC. As
the noble Lord knows, that difference entirely arose because the
Trade Act last year did not allow the payment of allowances to
commission members given the way it was assembled at that time.
It has become clear to us that, to allow for the best membership
of the TAC, some form of allowance—not generous, I hasten to
add—should be paid to its members. The members who will form part
of the statutory TAC are those who have been appointed today to
form this new TAC, and we should welcome them to their important
roles.
(Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and all the
other Ministers in the trade department on securing a trade deal
with our friends and allies in New Zealand. Is he aware of
reports that show that the carbon footprint for New Zealand lamb
eaten in London is lower than for domestic lamb, because the vast
majority of carbon emission is in the production phase, on the
farm? The economies of scale and efficiency reforms that have
made New Zealand lamb affordable have also reduced carbon
emissions. Is not the best thing we can do for the environment to
make the world richer, and is not freer trade an important lever
to pull in that regard?
(Con)
My noble friend makes some excellent points. I wish I had made
his point on lamb myself, so I thank him for that, and for
drawing the House’s attention to the agreement in principle with
New Zealand being reached, as announced today. The environmental
chapter of that agreement will break new ground for the UK and
New Zealand in supporting our shared climate and environment
goals, clean growth and the transition to a net-zero economy. I
am pleased that the mood of the House is to welcome the approval
in principle of this very important agreement.
(CB)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, as set out in the
register. The Minister will recall the discussions we had on
these issues during the passage of the Trade Bill through this
House. In his comments then, and today, he was reassuring about
government policies in this area, yet government practice on the
Australia deal has been far from reassuring. I reiterate the plea
made by the noble Lord, , and ask the Minister
whether the Government will be fully transparent and open about
the terms of both the Australia and New Zealand deals to allow
the scrutiny of the House, of which he is so flattering.
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right to draw attention to scrutiny. I am
always happy to repeat our commitment to scrutiny from the
Dispatch Box. Both the Australia and New Zealand agreements are
at the in-principle stage, at the moment. The full texts will be
published in due course. They will be made available to the House
in good time and will be scrutinised by the TAC and by your
Lordships’ International Agreements Committee. We will make sure
that there is time for all those processes to be completed
thoroughly and to the standard that noble Lords wish.
(Lab)
Documents leaked to Sky News reveal that the Department for
International Trade can drop both the climate asks on precedence
of multilateral environmental agreements over FTA provisions and
on the reference to the Paris Agreement temperature goals. This
is of great concern. Can the Minister say whether the Norway
agreement last week was one of very few including such clauses
because Norway insisted, and otherwise, for a Conservative
Government, it is always trade deals at all costs, irrespective
of other issues?
(Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to comment categorically
that the leaked document to which the noble Lord refers is not
government policy and is not being considered by Ministers.
(Con)
Will my noble friend reaffirm that the Government’s trade policy
is based on the facilitation of trade by the reciprocal removal
of barriers, not on seeking excuses to retain protectionist
restrictions we inherited from the EU, or signalling our approval
or disapproval, or trying to influence non-trade policies of
other countries except as part of multilateral agreements? Will
he remember the 19th-century dictum that free trade is God’s
diplomacy?
(Con)
My Lords, it is of course a great pleasure to have God on our
side in these matters. The noble Lord is right: we are a global
trading nation. Our future prosperity depends on us being a
global trading nation. This will remain one of the core
priorities of this Government.
The Lord Speaker ()
? Not present? I
call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
(GP)
The Minister seems to be ignoring the fact that Australia has
much lower food standards—incredibly low. It uses paraquat, which
has been banned for years here in Britain, and antibiotics, which
are also banned. Of course, we now have a trade deal with New
Zealand—are we going to fly those kiwi fruits in? Australia also
has incredibly low animal welfare standards. The Minister is
ditching our better food for the sake of some boastful statement
he can make here in the House.
(Con)
The noble Baroness’s question veers toward the unfair. What do I
see when I read the Australia free trade agreement? I see a
comprehensive environment chapter with Australia that protects
our rights to regulate to meet net zero, sets our shared
commitment to building mutually supportive trade and environment
policies, and establishes co-operative efforts to support our
green economy through trade in a range of areas. That seems to
fit the bill.
