Clause 2 Further provision about power 3.30pm The Minister of
State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston) I beg
to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1. This
Government amendment, tabled in the other place and agreed to,
rectifies a minor and technical typographical error in the Bill,
and clarifies the power available to Ministers of the Crown or a
devolved authority under clause 1. The amendment inserts a single
word,...Request free trial
Clause 2
Further provision about power
3.30pm
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade ()
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
This Government amendment, tabled in the other place and agreed
to, rectifies a minor and technical typographical error in the
Bill, and clarifies the power available to Ministers of the Crown
or a devolved authority under clause 1. The amendment inserts a
single word, “different”, in clause 2(1)(a), making it clear that
regulations under clause 1 may make different
“provision for different purposes or areas”.
The intention of the provision overall is to make clear that if
it were wanted, the Government procurement chapters could be
implemented differently for different types of procurement or in
different sectors. The Government do not anticipate relying on
this flexibility for the initial set of regulations implementing
the procurement chapters, because the chapters will be
implemented in the same way for the procurement subject to those
chapters. None the less, it is important to retain the
flexibility should the need arise in the future—for instance, if
it were necessary or expedient for regulations to make provision
implementing an amendment to the chapters in one way for
utilities and a different way for local government.
The flexibility is also reflected in regulations that may be made
to implement trade agreements within the scope of the Trade Act
2021. Section 4(1) of that Act similarly provides that
regulations
“may…make different provision for different purposes or
areas”.
However, I assure the House that any regulations made under the
Bill can be made only for the purposes described in clause 1,
namely implementing the Government procurement chapters and/or
dealing with matters arising out of or related to those
chapters.
(Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week the Office for Budget Responsibility published figures
on trade which changed the context for this debate on what is an
apparently innocuous amendment from the other place. According to
the OBR, we now face two years of declining exports, with a huge
6.6% drop in British exports this year, a further drop next year,
and then an average growth in our exports of less than 1% for the
next three years. We are reaping the results of the
Conservatives’ failure to negotiate a better trade deal with the
European Union or complete a trade deal with the United States,
and the impact of significant cuts in support for attendance at
trade shows and access to overseas markets is now all too
obvious.
This amendment, and the debates in the Lords, strike me as a big
missed opportunity—not for want of trying by Opposition
colleagues—to start attempting to put things right. Abolishing
the Department for International Trade and moving the deckchairs
around in Whitehall is not going to hide away the Conservatives’
dismal record on trade and economic growth. We are lagging behind
the rest of the G7 on exports to the world’s fastest growing
economies in the G20, and nothing that the Minister has said so
far, this afternoon or in previous debates, is going to improve
the situation any time soon.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but while the
amendment might involve the insertion of only one word in the
Bill, the difference it makes does matter, both for what it does
and what it does not do. Although there is support across the
House to increase trade with our friends in Australia and New
Zealand—particularly on the Labour Benches, not least because
both countries are now led by progressive Labour
Governments—there has also been widespread concern, among hon.
Members and certainly outside the House, about what Ministers
have negotiated, particularly in the trade deal with Australia.
As I say, this amendment feels like a missed opportunity to begin
to address those concerns.
We know that Ministers decided to throw British farmers under the
bus, ignoring the concerns of the National Farmers Union. We know
that the Prime Minister could have intervened, but did not. And
we know that the desperation to get any deal meant that too much
negotiating leverage was given up. One of the questions that the
amendment raises is whether its wording in any way helps to
offset, even just a little, those significant negotiating
failures by the Government. We on the Labour Benches warned
Ministers that the Australian deal would be used as a precedent
by the other countries with which Ministers are negotiating, and
as the Minister knows, that is exactly what is happening. The
weaknesses in the deal that his predecessors negotiated are now
being used to demand further concessions in our current
negotiations, particularly by the countries with big agricultural
interests.
I have considered carefully whether this amendment helps us to
find any comfort following the devastating analysis of these
trade deals offered to the House by the right hon. Member for
Camborne and Redruth (), when he explained, back in
November, that we
“gave away far too much for far too little in return”.—[Official
Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
He also said that
“the value of the UK agri-food market access offer was nearly
double what we got in return”.
I have also considered carefully whether this amendment from the
other place improved the scrutiny by Parliament, or even the
scrutiny of how the regulations bringing into effect the
procurement chapters of these trade deals are implemented. If the
amendment had forced Ministers to consult with and in the nations
and regions of the UK before the regulations were introduced, it
would have been extremely helpful. After all, surely one of the
most important lessons from these two trade deals is that the
process of parliamentary scrutiny for trade deals is not fit for
purpose.
Granted, Ministers in the Department for International Trade were
busy disagreeing and attacking each other at the time, but when
the then Trade Secretary failed to turn up eight times to give
evidence before the International Trade Committee on these
deals—and despite that, would not extend the time for the
Committee to report on the deals to the House—it became clear
that something was very amiss with the system of scrutiny. It is
hardly surprising that the International Trade Committee has been
abolished by Ministers, but instead of improving the scrutiny of
trade negotiations, or even just the regulations implementing the
procurement chapters of the negotiations, the amendment makes
things a little easier for Ministers.
(Warley) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend confirm, notwithstanding the absurdities of
the previous Trade Secretary, who was more concerned with a photo
opportunity than a proper deal, and some of the other
difficulties, that our position is that it is enormously
important that we have good trading and all other relations with
our great allies in Australia and New Zealand, particularly after
we recently strengthened and deepened our strategic relationship
through the very welcome AUKUS deal?
My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes a hugely important point.
Australia and New Zealand, as I said earlier, are important
allies of this country with whom we have crucial security
interests as well as trade interests. I accept that anything that
helps to maintain and strengthen those relationships is very
positive, but I am sure he would agree that we need to learn the
lessons from how Ministers carried on those negotiations,
particularly with the Australians.
Given the specific context of the Bill and the focus on
implementing the procurement chapters of the two trade deals, it
is a struggle to see how this amendment will help to improve the
implementation of the supposed better access to our partners’
procurement markets.
The leading procurement expert Professor Sánchez Graells set out
clearly in his evidence to the other place, and indeed to this
House, his concerns that the Australia deal worsens the
protections for British businesses competing in the Australian
procurement market. We are entitled to ask ourselves whether this
amendment helps to address that concern in any way. Sadly, I do
not think it does.
Professor Sánchez Graells also made clear his view that the
benefits of the trade deal in terms of access to Australia’s
procurement market have been significantly exaggerated. The noble
Lord Purvis and Labour Lords also picked up on that point in the
debates in the other House, but the one Lords amendment that the
Government backed does not address this concern. What the
amendment does, if anything, is ever so slightly increase
Ministers’ powers to implement regulations, wherever and however
they want.
Given how Ministers excluded some groups from the
negotiations—including trade unions—given the disregard for the
legitimate interests of our devolved nations, and given the
failure to negotiate commitments on climate change or proper
protections for specialist British brands such as Stilton cheese
or Scotch whisky, Ministers’ apparent determination to try to
claim a little more freedom to implement the procurement chapters
does not encourage any sense that they have learned lessons from
what has happened.
I have one specific question for the Minister on the
implementation of these trade deals. It would be very helpful for
small businesses across the UK if he set out the Department’s
plan to support small businesses that want to access the
Australian and New Zealand markets and take advantage of the
trade preferences in these two deals.
We will not seek to divide the House, but this amendment is a
reminder of the Government’s woeful performance on trade and
exports, and of the desperate need for a new Government
determined to lift up the living standards of everyone in this
country, not just the already very wealthy, by delivering more
exports and sustained economic growth.
(Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West () on taking such a great deal
of time to find some contention in a single amendment that adds
only the word “difficult.” I am afraid my remarks will be
somewhat shorter.
The whole basis and value of this Bill, and of what the Lords
have sent back to us, is in taking the opportunities presented to
us by our trade agreements. It is undoubtable that, through the
Australia and New Zealand trade deals, new trade opportunities
have been delivered. We have to be clear about how those values
have offered themselves, whether through defence agreements,
through creating new digital partnerships, through joining new
blocs such as CPTPP, through exploring the idea of the Gulf
Co-operation Council, through signing memorandums of
understanding with American states and trade agreements with
Israel or through finding ways to join up with India to unlock
services and industry opportunities for our country and our
businesses.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about how we might be able to help small
and medium-sized enterprises. Well, only this morning the
Department for Business and Trade held an event in the Attlee
Suite of Portcullis House on how we can help SMEs achieve their
true value and potential beyond our borders. I hope we see more
of those events, because it is essential that we find ways to
help our small businesses reach new markets.
I will come on to procurement and the amendment in a second,
before I stray too far, but it is relevant to talk about the
value of these trade deals. All too often, we are told that they
are not of enough value to the UK economy, which is to presume
that our trade deals are static and that no one takes advantage
of them when they are brought into force. After they are brought
into force, we always see them grow.
On the International Trade Committee, I always cite the example
of the North American free trade agreement. The expectation when
NAFTA came into force was that it would be of very little benefit
to the signatories’ economies. In fact, the opposite was the
case. It grew steadily over time and has evolved into what it is
today under a different name. We should look not at the current
forecast value of these trade deals but at how we can encourage
businesses in each and every one of our constituencies, from
Totnes in south Devon to Harrow West and Northern Ireland, to
take full advantage.
We talk about procurement a lot and we are trying to shape it in
a meaningful way in this House. So far, we are doing very well,
with the Procurement Bill. However, as the Minister has rightly
said, this is the chance to take the benefit of procurement
opportunities that vary. Where there are differences—it will not
just be in defence, as it might be in utilities, services,
industry and so on—this will allow us to take the opportunity
that comes with that range.
I do not think there is going to be much disagreement on this
Lords amendment. At last, it shapes a Bill that—
3.45pm
Do we not have to be careful on public procurement and recognise
the world as it is, notwithstanding agreements? Even when we were
a member of the EU, we found that other countries gave
considerable preference to their own producers within
procurement. Our civil service and Treasury resolutely, adamantly
and stubbornly refuse to support British industry, including
small and medium-sized enterprises, and so when they go into the
world market, they hear, “If you are not good enough for the
British Government, why are you good enough for us?” They are
being constantly undermined, even now, on small modular
reactors.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. We have
accepted in many instances the terms of the World Trade
Organisation and the carve-out measures within them, so we are
very compliant in many areas where we can be, for example, in
this instance, a little more protectionist in respect of some of
the key technologies we are developing in this country. There is
a bit of give and take on that point. We do recognise it in some
areas, although perhaps not to the extent that he would want to
see.
As I was saying, I do not disagree with this Lords amendment,
which is a perfectly simple one. There is always a lot in a word,
but this will give us the opportunity to take full advantage in
our trade deals and through procurement.
(Gordon) (SNP)
Out of all the potential amendments that could have come back
along the corridor from the other place, this is not one that
would have been top of my list. Let me surprise the Minister by
saying that this is a very good trade deal—for those viewing it
from Australia or New Zealand. It is not such a good trade
deal—it is a pretty lousy one—for those viewing it from Scotland.
We are dealing with a single-word amendment, and I can think of
many farmers in my constituency who could probably sum up their
views of this deal in a single word—none of their words would be
parliamentary, I hasten to add.
I hear what the hon. Member for Totnes () has to say about this
not being a static arrangement, but even then it still requires a
great deal of catching up in order to make up the ground here.
The UK Government’s own analysis shows that the trade deal with
New Zealand will bring in an increase of 0.03% of GDP over 15
years, with a figure of 0.08% of GDP from the Australia deal, all
while the UK trade and co-operation agreement with the EU leads
to a 4.9% fall for the UK over the same period.
The Scottish National party has a simple yardstick on trade
deals: we will support those that are good and oppose those that
are poor. Nothing that has come back alters our view of this
particular deal.
I shall be brief. I thank Members for their contributions today.
We have had two glass half empty responses and one glass half
full one. That does not surprise me at all, because I am still
waiting for the Opposition to support one of our trade deals. It
is important to remember that the Australia and New Zealand deals
benefit every nation and every region of the UK. I am
disappointed to hear what the hon. Member for Gordon () said, because the
attitude of the Scottish whisky manufacturers might be slightly
different, as huge benefits will likely come from these
deals.
As I said in my opening speech, this Lords amendment is a minor
and technical one. It ensures clarity on the point that the power
in the Bill can be used only to implement and deal with cases
arising as a result of these free trade agreements. Again, the
Government do not—
I realise that the Minister probably does not have much more to
say, but may I take this opportunity to press him to set out the
plan to help small businesses benefit from the trade preferences
in these deals?
The hon. Member is being slightly too impatient. I said that my
speech would be short, but it is not too short. There are a
couple of comments that I will come on to.
On the amendment, the Government do not anticipate relying on
this flexibility for the initial set of regulations implementing
the procurement chapters, but it is nevertheless important that
the flexibility is retained should the need for it arise in the
future.
I will respond to comments made by hon. Members. I have already
mentioned the economic benefits of the Australia and New Zealand
trade deals. They will generate billions of pounds of economic
activity, to the benefit of UK businesses and, of course, the
people we represent. This will lead to more jobs, which is why it
is unfathomable that anybody would vote against this.
The scrutiny that we give Bills stacks up pretty well compared
with other parliamentary democracies and, of course, is based on
CRaG—the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process—which I
remind Opposition Members was developed and implemented during
the time of the last Labour Government. If they do not like it,
they are criticising their own legislation.
On protections to support the most sensitive parts of the UK
farming community, we have secured various measures across both
deals that are collectively available for 15 to 20 years for the
most sensitive products. We have engaged, and continue to engage,
with the farming industry. Of course, these and the many other
deals we are negotiating are also ensuring that we are fit for
the 21st century. We are no longer in a world where all we do is
ship widgets from country A to country B via the countries
closest to us. Services, particularly those delivered digitally,
are now vital to the UK economy. They represent 80% of the UK
economy and it is absolutely vital that they form a key part of
our trade deals, as is the case with these two deals with
Australia and New Zealand.
On support for businesses, of course, as the Secretary of State
has said many times, we need to not only deliver on the deals but
make sure that businesses, large and small, right across the
country are able to benefit from them, so we will continue to
support small and medium-sized businesses. My hon. Friend the
Member for Totnes () highlighted this
morning’s export showcase event, at which MPs and Lords were
surprised at the extent to which support is already, and will
continue to be, available, whether in training, export support
services or UK export finance. That is not just for big
businesses; it is for small and medium-sized businesses as well.
There will be extensive support because we want all businesses,
large and small, to benefit from these deals.
The Bill’s measures might be technical in nature, but they will
make a real difference for people right across our constituencies
and right across the United Kingdom.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
|
