Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

Indeed; my hon. Friend has made his point very well. However, this is also about the pluses and minuses of what is signed, and what the Government are prepared to sign away just for the purpose of getting the deal done. For example, it was noticeable during the leadership contest that the newly elected—by our Tory Members—Prime Minister again refused to agree to enshrine animal welfare and environmental standards in trade deals, so intent was she on signing away Scottish farmers’ livelihoods, as this is the key factor in imports undermining domestic products on price. As it stands, the UK has placed no—none, nada, nil, zilch—environmental conditions on agricultural products that it will accept into the UK. Of course, it is not too late to set robust core standards for all food to be sold in the UK, and I will wait to see if there is a response on that.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman will share my fear that this trade deal will allow the import of food products produced in ways that would be illegal here—for instance, on land deforested for cattle production, or through systems that rely on the transport of live animals—and that such an outcome will disadvantage UK producers, penalising them for abiding by better standards.

[Drew Hendry]

Indeed, and of course we should have the promised opportunity to go into the detail of this. As FarmingUK has pointed out,

“The Australian-UK trade deal has gone through its scrutiny phase without MPs having a chance to have their say on behalf of constituents.”

Unless this Government take action, we will see the opportunity for imports, as a result of these deals, of meat from animals raised on land that has seen 1.6 million hectares of deforestation, and from animals raised in sow stalls, intensive feed lots and battery cages and treated with steroids or antibiotics. As for pesticides, even the UK Government’s own advisers have conceded that pesticide overuse is a valid concern. Less than half the 144 highly hazardous pesticides that are authorised for use in Australia are allowed here. Many of those in Australia are of the bee-killing variety. Food standards are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but, of course, the Scottish Parliament has no powers to stop imported products on the basis of how they are produced. I will say more about the Scottish Parliament in a while.

During the summer, the record hot temperatures caused by climate change should have caused the Government to think about the detail of trade business and how to incorporate protections and enhancements to ensure that we took measures to tackle that, but no. As we have heard, despite Australia’s huge reliance on coal and its less than impressive record on climate change, there is no reference to coal in the final text. Perhaps that is no surprise, given that Tony Abbott was involved in the process. This could and should have been pushed. The UK Government must go back and demand that specific parts of the Paris agreement references are reinstated in the pages that the UK removed just to rush this deal over the line.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

It is right that we in the UK seek to bolster our trade relationships across the world to boost our economy, create jobs, promote growth and benefit from exit from the European Union and the freedom that offers. That said, we should ensure the standards that we enjoy and value are not lessened because of such arrangements. In my constituency, I have many small family farms that spend each and every day working hard but are weighed down financially and by the time commitment needed to produce food to the highest standards.

Our farmers can truly boast of the safest food, with world-leading environmental standards, animal welfare standards and traceability from farm to fork. It would be wrong if trade deals and accession to the trans-Pacific partnership brought with them a lowering of those standards through the opening of our markets to cheaper products produced to lesser standards and with a negative impact on our environment. There is much focus now in the UK on the carbon footprint of farming. It would be terrible to impose targets on our farmers while we ship lesser product from the other side of the world.

These arguments are well rehearsed, and my colleagues and I have made them before in this House as we debated the Agriculture Bill and the Trade Bill. We need the Government to live up to their commitments that our farmers would not be sacrificed in the quest for free trade deals and that the standards we enjoy in the UK at considerable cost to our agriculture industry will not be diluted by new trade agreements. I recognise the opportunities—opportunities that a range of industries, including agriculture, wish to seize upon—but the Government must honour the commitment to farming families across the United Kingdom.

Agricultural Exports from Australia: Tariffs

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hormone beef will remain illegal, because we will not be changing our import standards. I do not believe that this deal represents a fundamental threat to UK farmers, and it certainly does not compromise our high standards. As has already been pointed out, any changes for sensitive goods, such as beef and lamb, can be staged. A typical Australian free trade agreement has stages over 10, 12 or 15 years. He is right that there is an opportunity here: a springboard to CPTPP, which I know he understands well as our trade envoy to many parts of south-east Asia.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

Farmers in my constituency produce first-class beef to the highest standards both environmentally and in terms of animal welfare, at considerable cost to the family farm. Does the Minister think it is fair to pitch these farmers against Australian farmers and their intensively produced imports, with lesser standards and great environmental impact?

[Greg Hands]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. In fact, I have met the Ulster Farmers Union twice in the past week to discuss these issues in particular. I met Diane Dodds, the Northern Ireland Economy Minister yesterday, and I am meeting Edwin Poots, the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister, later today, so we are doing extensive outreach within Northern Ireland.

I would point out to the hon. Lady the huge opportunities for the Northern Irish agriculture sector. The very first beef exported to the United States last year came from Foyle Food Group in Northern Ireland. There are great opportunities for companies such as Moy Park as well in Northern Ireland to be able to export more. We are absolutely confident of being on the front foot, and ensuring that Northern Ireland also benefits from our free trade agreements, as it is written into the Northern Ireland protocol, and is able to sell more of its high quality meat into markets all around the world, including to the CPTPP 11.

Trade Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Girvan]

I agree with my hon. Friend about our fishing industry. We have a fantastic product. I have eaten in many countries around the world, and I understand why they would want to buy Northern Ireland produce—it is the best in the world. You will know that if you have had a soda farl from Northern Ireland; I know of some previous Secretaries of State who can bear that out.

We have had the agrifood sector lobbying us. Many in our farming sector lobbied us about changes that they wanted to be made to the Agriculture Bill, which went through the House recently. We see this as a second opportunity to give protection. I understand that some say we already have protection within legislation. I do not always say that it is important to gold-plate things, but sometimes we have to reinforce the stance that we are taking. That has to happen, and it is important that we support our farmers.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the devolved Administrations play a key role in any future trade policy, and that given Northern Ireland’s dependence on agriculture, it is vital that this Government listen to the devolved regions?

[Paul Girvan]

I am a great Unionist. I believe that we are part of the United Kingdom and we should be working together to ensure that we get the best bang for our buck, to use an American term, as a United Kingdom. That is vital.

We already have protection in some areas. I come from an engineering background. We lead the world in electrical standards. Many other countries manufacture a lot more, but we lead in electrical safety. We set those safety standards. We make sure that goods coming into our country are made to those standards. Sony makes the monitors that we have in the Chamber. It makes specific monitors that are only for the UK, because we have such stringent electrical standards. It has the flexibility to do that. There are farms in Europe and throughout the world that make food to sell into our market that is bespoke, just to suit our market. That can be done, and it is being done. I want to make sure that we give our farmers and our industry an opportunity to export on to the world stage, so that our product is sold. We can use this Bill to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As three Government Back Benchers in a row have failed to appear in the Chamber, we will go straight to Carla Lockhart.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is vital that as we shape our future trade policy, we do it in a way that maximises the benefits of our new-found independence but does not sacrifice key industries in the UK. In the context of an economy facing the greatest challenges in my lifetime due to covid-19, we are certainly not in a place where we can sacrifice any industry, let alone the backbone of our economy: our agriculture industry.

It is not too long ago that the Agriculture Bill was debated in this House. In my contribution to that debate, I made clear the importance of protecting British farming and the high standards that it upholds in any future trade agreement. The opportunity to enshrine all that is good about our agriculture industry in that Bill was not taken at that time. That was deeply regrettable and caused much concern among my constituents.

In this Bill we have another opportunity—an opportunity to make it clear to the farmers and agri-food businesses that have been an essential component of the national effort against coronavirus that they will not be sacrificed in any future trade agreements. Indeed, we ought to be exploring how we can help the industry to thrive in coming years and to share in the benefits of life outside the EU. To do that, the fundamental building block is standards. In the context of our agriculture industry, future trade policy must respect the high production standards in terms of animal welfare and environmental protection to which our farmers adhere. We know that comes at considerable cost to local farmers and that overseas farmers have significant cost-of-production advantages due to lower regulatory requirements. In simple terms, if the UK market is flooded with substandard products, it will result in the demise of the industry.

To that end, the establishment of a trade and agriculture commission is very welcome, and I thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for ensuring that the voice of Northern Ireland is heard on the commission by appointing Mr Victor Chestnutt, the incoming president of the Ulster Farmers Union. In addition to that forum, however, we need to ensure that Parliament has a strong voice and a meaningful say in the shape of future trade agreements in relation to mandating, negotiating principles and approval of any such deals. Our role should be proactive, not passive. That is why we support new clause 4. Parliament’s role must be enhanced ahead of negotiations; it should be for Parliament to scope out the critical negotiating objectives; to ensure that the interests of all parts of the UK are actively considered and prioritised, the devolved Administrations should also have a meaningful role.

We recognise the important provision the new clause makes for sustainability impact assessments, such as of environmental effect, the impact on animal welfare and health concerns. That ensures compliance with current—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her time by quite a long way. I call Antony Higginbotham.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (Accession)

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. Free trade has lifted a billion people out of poverty in the past few decades, and that is a record that no other policy prescription can match.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

As an integral part of the United Kingdom, businesses and people in Northern Ireland, including my constituents in Upper Bann, want to benefit from the deal in the same way that any other constituted part of the UK can. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Northern Ireland protocol will not affect Northern Ireland exporters’ ability to benefit from any trade deal and Northern Ireland businesses and consumers being able to import goods covered by such a deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working very closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that Northern Ireland is fully part of any trade deal we agree, and we are specifically consulting Northern Ireland businesses to make sure that they benefit.

International Women’s Day

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to be in the Chamber to hear such powerful and interesting speeches in a debate that we agree across the House is one of the best that we have, every year. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) call International Women’s Day “feminists’ Christmas”, and one of our presents this year was the brilliant maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum).

I am going to lower the tone and mood now by talking about misogyny, I am afraid. The dictionary definition of misogyny is

“hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women”.

It comes in various forms and wears various guises—from the more subtle, everyday acts of sexism that chip away at the fragile, paper-thin walls of equality, to the cruder, more blatant, neanderthal acts that undermine half the world’s human population. Part of our job as women in Parliament is to receive it, filter it, weather it, police it, ignore it, highlight it, talk about it, help other women deal with it, tackle it so that other women do not have to, and fight it constantly with a view to eradicating it completely. But that task is not unlike having to sieve all the little bits of plastic out of our oceans.

At what point should we call it out? Should it be at the point where it starts to niggle and nag at us, something that we can just make out—a harmless little comment, a dismissal or exclusion from the conversation? Should it be in the face of never-ending mansplaining by men who know literally nothing about subjects that we are, in fact, experts in? Or should it be at the point where it stops us in our tracks, takes our breath away and fills our lungs with rage and indignation instead, such as when we see the leaders of nations treating women as second-class citizens, as less than men, as after-thoughts, commodities, arm candy and mere playthings?

Misogyny is not especially choosy. It is not confined to one particular class, specific cultures, institutions or political parties. Some may appear to be more blatantly sexist and some may appear to have made great strides in recent history—that, of course, is something to celebrate. The Labour party now has more female MPs than male ones for the first time in history. But the roots and very culture of so many organisations are so steeped in the history of men—male stories, male voices, male experience and even male portraits. It will take a lot more time and our patience will be tested quite a bit more, before we start to see and really feel meaningful change.

One place where it is not hard to find sexism and misogyny—it takes about a nano-second—is, of course, social media. The vitriol against, and hatred of, women is there for all to see. Rape threats, death threats or casual references to violence should not be commonplace, but we know that they are. It seems that any woman with almost any opinion or thought who dares to be bold enough to express it is in line for a world of fun. Brace yourselves, ladies—speaking your mind online is a bit like wearing a onesie made of raw beef while heading for a paddle in the nearest piranha tank! We do not need to have a blue tick next to our names to bring the hungriest of those piranhas to the tank, but it helps. Female politicians with a mind, some thoughts and the audacity to express them are fair game.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

As everyone in the House will know, women have been subjected to horrendous trolling and comments on social media. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must get serious about online trolling and cyber-security? They should listen to the women in this House who have been subjected to it. I have been, and it is important that women have a voice when these decisions are being made.

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely. I would welcome any such discussion in this House—and we know that the issue goes across the House; it is not just about one particular party. I thank the hon. Lady for raising the point.

Luckily, most of us here are made of pretty tough stuff: we do not usually get to this place by accident. But tough or not, our strength and mental wellbeing can be pushed to breaking point. The sinister side of the kind of serious online abuse that public figures are often subjected to can lead to some pretty dark places—from pile-ons on social media, to nasty, anonymous emails, swastikas daubed on office doors or bricks thrown through windows. But it is not all doom and gloom either. On social media, communities are speaking out for each other more and more—women making sure that those most abused feel supported and safe.

A couple of days ago, a petition with 850,000 signatures was taken to Downing Street, every one of them inspired by the hurt and pain collectively felt by the nation when we heard the terrible news of Caroline Flack’s tragic death. There is now recognition that things need to change—not just for five minutes or five months, but significantly. There can be no more terrible tragedies such as Caroline Flack’s—no more salacious gossip printed as news for our entertainment. There are real consequences. Let us follow leading broadcasters such as Iain Lee, himself so brave and honest when discussing issues such as mental health, and be kind. Kindness costs nothing, and it could actually start to save lives.