Meeting of the Parliament 14 March 2023
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests; I am a partner in a farming business in Orkney and a member of NFU Scotland. I am also a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which considered the LCM. I thank the committee clerks for all their efforts in drafting our report.
The debate is largely a matter of process, as has been discussed. I would like to start with the bill itself. The two free trade agreements are the first from-scratch deals that the UK has negotiated since we left the EU. They are historic and reflect the deep social, familial and economic bonds between our three countries. They will strengthen our trade with Australia and New Zealand and will deepen our ability to access their markets. They could pave the way for the UK to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
The Australia deal will see tariffs removed on all UK exports and will be a real boost for Scottish products, including those from the iconic whisky sector and from our fashion sector. The animal welfare charter, with its non-regression clause, will prevent any roll-back on welfare standards. The deal will make it easier for people to operate in each other’s economies. It will also remove visas, allowing young people from Scotland to travel and work in Australia for up to three years at a time.
The New Zealand deal will also see tariffs dropped on all products and red tape slashed for the nearly 6,000 UK small and medium-sized enterprises that export goods to the country—businesses that employ nearly 250,000 people across the UK. Scottish exporters will now have an advantage over international rivals in a market that is expected to grow by 30 per cent by the end of the decade.
The UK Government estimates that the free trade agreement with Australia could increase trade between the two countries by 53 per cent, with an increase in gross value added of almost £120 million. The UK-New Zealand deal could increase trade by 59 per cent. Business across the UK and Scotland will benefit.
The bill implements the procurement chapters of the two deals into UK domestic law, ensuring that the UK is not in breach of its obligations as the agreements come into force. Although the UK Government’s intention is that, in the future, a power in the Procurement Bill will allow procurement provisions in international agreements to be implemented, legislation is needed now in relation to these two agreements, because they must be implemented before the Procurement Bill is likely to come into force.
As the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s report on the LCM states, there was agreement from members on a number of issues around scrutiny of the bill and an acceptance of the need for both Governments to engage constructively. However, my colleague Graham Simpson and I could not agree with the committee’s recommendation that the powers be conferred solely on Scottish ministers or that UK ministers should be required to obtain consent from Scottish ministers.
The UK Government has made commitments to the devolved Administrations to not normally legislate within devolved areas, and when it has to, not to do so without consultation. However, it is important that, as international relations is a reserved matter, the UK Government is able to legislate to meet international obligations. If consent was put into statute, which I know some members want, it could discourage more consensual intergovernmental working and risk disagreements being decided in more lengthy and expensive court action.
There is also a risk that consent may be withheld for political reasons, or that the Scottish Government might seek to create arguments for purely political gain. I know that that suggestion may come as a shock to many members in the chamber. During our membership of the European Union, the Scottish Government was content for many of the powers that it now disputes to be held in Brussels, and presumably, given its position on EU membership, it would be happy to have them invested in Brussels again.
Does the Scottish Government have a genuine concern over these powers, or is it less about concerns about the bill and more about stoking constitutional grievance? Is it that, as the sun sets on this First Minister’s time in office, the last act of this Administration will be to leave us one last hurrah of divisive grievance politics?
Is it that the Scottish National Party does not like trade deals? The SNP has never supported a trade deal negotiated by the UK or the EU. It did not support the deals with Canada, Japan, Ukraine, South Africa, Singapore or South Korea. It even voted against the trade deal between the UK and the EU, and it was content for us to leave the EU with a no-deal Brexit.
The UK Government has negotiated important deals with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. As I have outlined, they will benefit people and businesses across the UK and across Scotland. They include important protections for key sectors and in areas such as animal welfare. The Scottish Conservatives support these agreements, and we will do so by opposing the SNP’s grandstanding attempts to block them today.
14:43