Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Australia — House of Lords, 2021-06-24
Topic: Foreign Trade
Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter of 18 June with a copy of the agreement in principle and an explainer. He is very good at keeping the Front Benches informed in the House, which is appreciated These Benches that I speak for want more free, fair and open trade, for the UK to export more and for UK consumers to have a wider choice of higher-standard goods at globally competitive prices. We want trade deals to reflect growth in UK export potential, but we want them strategically used for wider social, climate, human rights, labour and environmental standards. We do not want them to be an opportunity for the UK to miss, to provide market access for other countries without commensurate or better gains for us The desperation of this Government to have any deal, no matter what, is noted among our trading partners, and they take advantage. A bad deal is better than no deal, it seems. On the much-heralded £15 billion Japan deal, £13 billion was for Japan and £2 billion for the UK. On this deal and the agreement in principle, UK exports to Australia will go up over 15 years by £500 million, the Government say, while Australian exports to the UK will go up by £700 million. That is about three royal yachts. The telling point on market access was in the bullet point that "both sides formalise their agreement on splits of TRQs at the WTO and Australia withdraws its objections to the UK’s goods schedule." That was the giveaway. Australia has got exactly what it wants. It has withdrawn its objections at the WTO—objections which, I remind the House, this Government said had no foundation. It turns out that our negotiation had rather weak foundations. I co-chaired, with the Nigerian Trade Minister, a commission of inquiry looking at areas where we can expand Commonwealth trade. Why is there no reference to the Commonwealth in this agreement However, let me quote positively from the website of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: "an ambitious and comprehensive FTA will assist with post-pandemic economic recovery by providing new opportunities in a highly significant market for Australian goods and services. It will provide Australian exporters with a competitive edge and more choices about where they do business. Australian consumers and companies stand to benefit through greater choice in goods and services at lower prices." That is the headline of the Australian Government of the agreement with the European Union, now in its 11th round. The Australian Government go on to say: "We want an FTA with the EU to set the benchmark for what can be achieved between like-minded partners." The narratives for the EU and the UK are remarkably similar. The UK scoping exercise for this, an ambitious and comprehensive FTA for Australia, said that it would bring GDP growth ranging from 0.01% and 0.02% over 15 years. The EU scoping exercise in 2018 said that "an ambitious and comprehensive FTA will bring about GDP growth ranging from 0.01% to 0.02% over 15 years." Why has a Brexit agreement no greater benefit than we would have had anyway? On goods, we are expecting an increase in exports of up to 7.4%, which is of course positive. In the Government’s own document, Australia is looking for exports to the UK to increase up to 83.2%. Why is there such a difference? It is estimated for the EU scoping exercise that EU exports to Australia could go up under their agreement by one-third. Why are UK exports up by 3.6% and European exports up by 36% On legal services, the Minister said to me on Tuesday that: "It will contain provisions on legal services, as we have heard, but it will not confer the automatic ability for Australian lawyers to practise law in the UK."—[Official Report, 22/6/21; col. 163.] The fourth bullet point of the agreement in principle mentions: "Legal services provisions which will both guarantee that UK and Australian lawyers can advise clients and provide arbitration, mediation and conciliation services in the other country’s territory using their original qualifications" I regret to say this, but I believe that the Minister misled the House. I hope that he has an opportunity to correct that at the Dispatch Box today Can the Minister explain why in the agreement there will be a chapter on mobility, which could well be positive, about companies sponsoring "visas committed in the FTA without first having to prove that a national of the country in question could not be hired to do the job, through the reciprocal removal of economic needs" Is this now a direct repudiation of the points system that the Home Office has put in place, and, which will be the case—the UK Home Office points system for Australia or this trade agreement? On goods, during the trade negotiations the Government’s press release in November said that the Government had a suite of tools including tariffs, tariff quotas and safeguards to ensure that British farmers, with their high standards, were not unfairly undercut in any trade deal. However, the NFU said that it was not consulted, and none of these methods seems to have been used We know that, according to Food Standards Australia New Zealand—FSANZ—around 40% of cattle are given hormone treatment, but the quotas for imports are currently for accredited hormone-free cattle. There is no differential quota guarantee in this outline agreement; will it be in the final agreement? Neonicotinoids are used on Australian crops—cotton, canola, cereals and sunflowers—but their use in the United Kingdom is banned. What guarantees are there that we will not import goods for which illegal pesticides have been used as part of their production? What guarantees are there that we will not import sows that have been reared in sow stalls, which have been banned in the UK since 1999? What guarantees are there that pigs raised by intensive farming methods and chickens reared in battery cages, which we have banned, will not be imported Finally, it is of course a fallacy to suggest that, if we are critical of this agreement, we are critical of free trade. We are critical of the Government’s ability to negotiate good trade agreements. If imported goods are cheaper, the Government say that they will safeguard against undercutting—but that is not in this agreement. Workers with skills having to get a visa because of economic need is not mentioned in this agreement. The continuing protection against hormones and pesticides that Defra has indicated is also not in this agreement. Who is in charge of our agriculture, immigration and economic policy?