16:12 The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)

The UK-Australia agreement contains an innovation chapter, which is the first of its kind in any FTA between two partners in the world. This will ensure that our trading relationship remains at the forefront of emerging technologies. I might just add that the Confederation of British Industry said that our deal with New Zealand puts us at the fore of the green trade revolution and showcases to the world that trade and climate change can go hand in hand.

[Source]

16:34 Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour)

We also see in the Australian deal a lack of success on tackling climate change. The former COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), told the House last December that the Australia deal would reaffirm

“both parties’ commitments to upholding our obligations under the Paris agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5°.” —[ Official Report , 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 903.]

The current Secretary of State for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), was sadly not here to open the debate. When she was standing to be Conservative party leader, she branded the net zero climate target “unilateral economic disarmament”. I think it is fair to say that there are worries about her commitment to delivering the progress needed on climate change, given that she has expressed that view publicly. Not only does that view misjudge the economic imperative of action to tackle climate change, but it fails to recognise the huge opportunities that the transition to net zero could provide. The question must also be asked: how broken can a party be when dabbling with climate change denial is a way to drum up support from its members?

I want to highlight the real challenge in the Committee for the Bill that the Minister referred to, which was not a Bill about giving effect to a whole range but a specific, narrow Bill on public procurement provisions. The nature of the Bill meant that, under the entirely appropriate rules of this House, finding areas of debate in Committee was very difficult. It was prohibitively narrow: climate change, workers’ rights, consultation with devolved Administrations and animal welfare were not within the scope of the Bill. The agreements were signed before they came before Parliament, so the scope for meaningful debate was fatally curtailed. There has been no scrutiny worthy of the name.

[Source]

17:11 Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)

First, a general debate is no replacement for genuine parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have failed to provide that, even though it was promised. The deals, lumped together in the debate, are one-sided and a betrayal of farmers. They threaten food security and animal welfare, reduce consumer confidence, find climate change expendable and do nothing to mitigate the enormous losses of Brexit. Quite possibly, they are also breaking international law. Yet again, no reason is provided to support this further exercise in UK self-harm. They simply double underscore the increasing risks of the UK and the need for Scotland to become a normal, independent country and to rejoin the world’s most successful trading bloc, the EU.

It looks like he succeeded on both sides of the world—that is little surprise with this fracking Government, whose Prime Minister had to be shamed into attending COP27. Australian oil and gas production is set to increase substantially until at least 2030, with dozens of new coalmines, yet there is nothing on that on the UK Government’s agenda. It is no wonder that even Tory Lord Deben, the chair of the Climate Change Committee, condemned the Australia deal as “totally offensive”.

The Scottish Government called on the UK Government to prioritise the Paris agreement commitments, but the UK Government signed this deal with nowt. Indeed, we know that they actively scrubbed all the concerns in haste to get the deal signed, as departmental emails prove. There are no legally binding, enforceable climate change conditions in either deal. As I said, it is no wonder that they do not want the deals to be scrutinised. They may, however, have broken international law through the lack of scrutiny. They will probably just shrug their shoulders, of course, like their Prime Minister and former Prime Minister, because they are getting pretty good at lawbreaking on that side of the House. A formal complaint will, however, be heard by the Aarhus convention compliance committee.

The UK Government must stop gambling with Scottish farming, food production, manufacturing and trade. They have failed to protect our brands. They have gambled with food standards, workers’ rights and protections. They are reckless over the environment and climate change, and, as has been so obvious, they have turbocharged inflation and threatened people’s wellbeing, as well as diminished their household budgets. And yet, they have the brass neck—the utter cheek—to say that we should have supported this place, so often in a race to the bottom, especially in this international lunacy and trading failure.

People in Scotland can see that the risk is not in being a normal, independent country, but in remaining shackled to Westminster. They see that these one-sided deals do nothing for our farmers, damage our food security, lower standards, fail on animal welfare and climate change, possibly break international law and do nothing to mitigate the eye-watering costs of Brexit. The deals cannot be supported and it is clearer than ever that Scotland must return to the EU as an equal and normal independent country to escape Westminster’s basket-case ideologies.

[Source]

17:53 Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)

However, it is possible for the Government to share their overall strategy with the House. Some of the things such a strategy would address are obvious. Earlier, an hon. Member intervened to make a point about food security. In a world that is changing and where climate change is devastating the capacity to produce the food that the world needs, food security for our nation has to be fundamental, yet that is not written into any trade strategy that the Government have come up with. There is a need to balance the advantages and disadvantages not simply for the nation as a whole, but for different parts of the nation. That has to be fundamental. The agricultural parts of this country have very different needs from, say, the service sector of the City of London. It may be that we make great gains for the City and, objectively, nobody can be against that concept, but we will be concerned about the impact on communities if we see disruption of the employment base and of the capacity of our agricultural areas to operate in the way that we need as a nation.

[Source]

18:07 Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)

The same can be said for climate change. In the Australia deal, the wording is weaker than, and does not go beyond, the Paris agreement. Australia is a country of similar economic and legal profile, and it now even has a Labour Government—unlike us, but not for much longer, I hope—so why can we not negotiate something better? The clauses on climate change are the kinds of things that we would expect from negotiations with countries that are much harder to negotiate with, such as China or India—countries that are much more problematic on climate change.

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about climate change. Does he not find it incredible that all the concerns that might have been raised about climate change and the Paris agreement were scrubbed in the haste to get the Australia deal through so the Government could meet some arbitrary deadline?

That is exactly the problem. If we have higher climate change standards, workers’ rights or environmental standards, and we have free trade with another country that has lower standards, all we are doing is exporting British jobs, opening the door and saying to companies, “Don’t worry about our climate change rules, our carbon trading or the standards we expect you to meet. Go and set up your companies in that other country, and we will still import all the goods and services.” That is an unemployment note for British workers, and the Government are signing it constantly, with country after country, because they are obsessed with getting deals over the line rather than with the quality of those deals.

The environment chapter ought to have been capable of actually changing the climate change debate in Australia, so it is disappointing that it has, quite frankly, no teeth whatever. What does that say to countries with which we might want to negotiate to stop deforestation, mining coal and so on?

[Source]

18:19 Richard Foord (Liberal Democrat)

“neither does it win on our aspiration for high standards, climate change targets, or reliable food security.”

[Source]

18:23 Gareth Thomas (Labour)

The huge giveaway to Australian farmers led Australian negotiators to boast of their success. It is as if Ministers have turned their backs on rural communities and decided that farmers did not matter in these negotiations. There is little on labour rights, even less on human rights and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and others have pointed out, little on climate change.

[Source]

18:34 Andrew Bowie (Conservative)

Before I go on, I must quickly correct the record. Earlier, the Minister for Trade Policy, who unfortunately has a prior engagement in his constituency, said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) that the climate change agreement in the deal was Australia’s first. It is not; it is actually Australia’s second. It also has an environmental chapter in its agreement to the CPTPP. In addition, the Trade and Agriculture Commission has separately confirmed that our free trade agreements do not require the UK to change our existing levels of statutory protection in relation to any areas.

[Source]