The International Trade Committee today publishes the
Government’s response to its report on the UK’s trade deal with
Australia.
In two reports on the deal, the Committee warned the Government against
overselling the benefits of trade deals, given that tariff
reductions on processed food and drink are unlikely to make a
noticeable difference at supermarket checkouts, with products
such as Australian wines likely becoming cheaper by just a few
pence.
The cross-party Committee of MPs expressed disappointment that
Australian food will not be required to meet core UK food
production standards, for example regarding pesticide use, and
argued that negotiating legal protection for the names of iconic
UK food and drink exports - such as Melton Mowbray pork pies,
Scotch whisky and Welsh lamb - should have been an easy
win.
The reports also called on the Government to
extend the Parliamentary scrutiny period to give MPs more
time to examine the deal, which the Government declined to do,
and requested a full assessment of the winners and losers across
all economic sectors and nations of the UK.
Commenting on the response, , Chair of the
International Trade Committee, said:
“We welcome the Secretary of State to her new role and look
forward to a fruitful and constructive working
relationship.
“While we thank the Government for responding to our reports, it
is disappointing that not all of our points were fully responded
to. There is also a contradiction between the Government’s
support for our ‘comprehensive and detailed’ report and its
suggestion that we took too long to produce it. We are
considering the scrutiny process for future trade agreements and
will provide recommendations to the Government in the coming
weeks.”
The reports included the following conclusions and
recommendations:
· Insofar as tariff cuts are
passed through, this will benefit UK consumers – and UK exporters
should also benefit. However, the gains are likely to be modest,
and the removal of tariffs from Australian imports will not make
any noticeable difference at supermarket tills.
· The almost complete
liberalisation of unprocessed agri-food trade with Australia is a
significant step, especially given the UK’s strong defensive
interests and minimal offensive interests. The Committee
acknowledges the Government has sought to cushion negative
impacts on UK producers with long-lasting phase-in arrangements.
However, the duration of those arrangements is not necessarily a
long period for the sectors concerned, given their lengthy
planning horizons.
· The Government has failed
to secure any substantive concessions on the protection of UK
Geographical Indications in Australia. This is another example of
the Government failing to secure an obvious benefit in exchange
for the extensive concessions it has given on liberalising
agri-food imports.
· The Government must beware
of overselling trade agreements. Impact Assessments must clearly
communicate a realistic assessment of potential winners and
losers (across different sectors and different parts of the UK)
under each agreement.
