The agreements remove 100% of tariffs on goods as soon as they come into force, reducing red tape for British exports. Automotive and food manufacturing sectors will benefit significantly from these deals. Additionally, the deals encourage further inward investment and improve access to Government procurement markets. These deals also include chapters on innovation, gender equality, and environmental protection.

Expressed concern about the impact of the Australia deal on British farmers, citing concerns from Jilly Greed and the former chief economist of the National Farmers Union. The Minister responded by highlighting protections in place for sensitive agricultural products.

Cited a statement from 'Y Tir', expressing concern about the cumulative impact of trade deals on UK agriculture, noting that Welsh farmers could be among the losers if these deals are ratified. The Minister acknowledged concerns but defended the protections in place.

Asked about the cumulative impact of various trade deals on Welsh farmers, and whether this had been assessed by the Department for International Trade. The Minister responded affirmatively to the engagement with NFUs but did not provide specific details.

Suggested that import substitution might be a factor in the beef market given existing imports from Brazil and Ireland, raising questions about how Australian beef would affect this equation. The Minister did not directly address these concerns but noted the overall importance of trade deals for the economy.

Recalled that before joining the common market, UK agriculture thrived despite competition from Australia and New Zealand, suggesting farmers would continue to adapt. The Minister responded positively to support for good trade deals but did not elaborate further on this specific point.

Asked about the International Trade Committee's finding that more export opportunities and safeguards could have been negotiated, questioning how lessons will be implemented in future deals. The Minister defended the process and outcomes of the current negotiations.

Asked about commitments to ILO core conventions and ensuring workers' rights are not undermined by these trade deals, emphasising the importance of social partnership. The Minister did not provide a direct answer but emphasised the overall benefits of the deals.

Questioned whether there was adequate information in the Australia agreement about environmental standards and coal use, raising concerns about consumer education on these issues. The Minister acknowledged the importance of such measures but did not provide detailed answers.

Emphasises the importance of fair trade, expressing concern about the imbalance in farm standards between Britain and countries like New Zealand and Australia. Believes that free trade must have strategic value to protect food security and fears it may undermine British farmers' ability to compete.

Raises concerns over the negative impact on UK agriculture, questions why the Government did not achieve similar results as Japan and South Korea in trade deals with Australia. Questions Ministers' commitment to climate change action and their handling of workers’ rights and geographical indicators protection. Criticises the scrutiny process for these deals.

Eustice criticises the Australia trade deal, arguing it was not a good deal for the UK. He suggests that the Department of International Trade made significant mistakes during negotiations, particularly in setting an arbitrary deadline to conclude the deal by the time of the G7 summit. Eustice proposes changes such as transferring agrifood negotiation responsibilities from DIT to DEFRA due to their superior technical knowledge. He also emphasises the need for Parliament to have a stronger role in scrutinising and agreeing negotiating mandates, using Japan's parliamentary process as an example. Lastly, he questions Crawford Falconer’s suitability for his position within DIT.

Mangnall asks Eustice about the dispute resolution mechanisms in CPTPP and whether they can override UK SPS standards through the WTO. He seeks clarification on whether such a scenario is possible, indicating some disagreement or misunderstanding regarding the legal framework.

The hon. Member argues that the trade deals are one-sided and a betrayal of farmers. They threaten food security and animal welfare, reduce consumer confidence, find climate change expendable, do nothing to mitigate the enormous losses of Brexit, and possibly break international law. The deals make little sense unless they are part of a grubby deal for power. The hon. Member cites examples from the National Farmers Union president Minette Batters and highlights variations in standards compared to UK producers. He also emphasises that 72% of people across the nations of the UK do not want food that does not meet current standards coming in through trade deals.

The hon. Member argues that having a vote on the deals would not change anything, as they are part of CRaG mechanism which means votes would make no changes to the trade deals being debated.

The hon. Member questions whether importing chicken from countries with very questionable standards such as Brazil and Thailand, even within the EU framework, is ignored by the Government.

Mr. Beresford criticised the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey but praised his right hon. Friend George Eustice's contribution. He highlighted historical trade ties between the UK and New Zealand, noting that New Zealand farmers are looking to the UK as a market after Brexit. Mr. Beresford emphasised the importance of bilateral trade agreements for both nations' economies, particularly in agriculture, manufacturing, and services sectors. He also addressed concerns about tariff-free imports swamping the UK agricultural sector but noted that phased reductions would mitigate these risks. He concluded by urging British industries to seize opportunities offered by new trade deals.

Mr. Spellar argued for open and fair trade, emphasising its historical importance in driving human progress and economic development. He acknowledged the Government's efforts but criticised past inadequacies, particularly during the Truss era, highlighting a technical deficit and irresponsible attitudes towards negotiations. He stressed the need for robust enforcement of trade agreements and advocated for greater scrutiny and involvement from stakeholders like trade unions in future negotiations to ensure better deals.

Mr. Mangnall discussed the work of the International Trade Committee and its reports on various trade agreements, emphasising that the UK is signing beneficial trade deals at a steady pace. He acknowledged the need for scrutiny but argued it should not be feared, highlighting the role of the committee as a critical friend to strengthen the government's position. Mr. Mangnall also addressed concerns about farming and the Trade and Agriculture Commission, suggesting its use could enhance support and scrutiny for agriculture. He emphasised that trade deals offer opportunities beyond import impacts, including export benefits and mobility for economic growth.

Mr. Lloyd criticised the Government's handling of scrutiny for the trade agreements with New Zealand and Australia, highlighting inadequate parliamentary oversight and a lack of commitment by senior Ministers to expose themselves to Select Committees and general scrutiny. He emphasised the inadequacy of the process due to both political commitment issues and capacity constraints within Parliament. Mr. Lloyd agreed that each trade deal would have specific characteristics but stressed the need for a comprehensive national trade strategy, especially considering food security and regional impacts such as those on Northern Ireland. He pointed out that the EU’s approach was more protective towards its agricultural base than the UK's recent agreements, suggesting the Government could do better in future negotiations.

Ms Green welcomed the limited economic benefits expected from the New Zealand deal but expressed concern about inadequate support for small businesses transitioning to new export markets. She supported calls by the International Trade Committee for detailed impact assessments on different sectors and regions, citing potential negative impacts on Wales' lamb industry as an example. Ms Green called for a clear overarching trade strategy that includes economic ambitions and standards on human rights, environmental protections, labour conditions, and safety. She urged the Government to provide reassurance to farmers and other industries threatened by new agreements.

Critiques the UK-Australia trade deal, arguing that it lacks proper scrutiny and benefits Australia more than the UK. Highlights issues with food standards, visa arrangements for students, climate change provisions, procurement rights, and the need for parliamentary oversight.

Farmers across the UK, particularly in Devon, are concerned about the Government's approach to new trade deals. The Government has signed only four new deals since 2016, including those with Australia and New Zealand, which will allow produce made to lower standards to enter the UK market. This makes it difficult for British farmers to compete due to increased costs and environmental regulations. The GDP increase from these deals is expected to be minimal at 0.11%, while the turmoil in rural communities will likely worsen. With over 64,000 people in agriculture across the south-west potentially affected, the New Zealand trade agreement allows for tariff-free import volumes of up to 165,000 tonnes by year 15. The National Sheep Association has warned that these deals do not support high standards or climate change targets and undermine food security.

The debate is necessary due to consistent frustration over insufficient scrutiny of FTAs. The previous Secretary of State, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, avoided scrutiny eight times and the current Minister triggered the CRaG period before proper assessment was made by the International Trade Committee. Ministers should be open about which parts of the economy will benefit or not from these deals. UK trade has grown by just 3% under the Conservatives, lagging behind other major nations. The deal with Australia benefits Australian farmers but offers little for British ones. There is a lack of emphasis on labour rights, human rights and climate change.

Made a powerful speech criticising the Australia free trade agreement as not being very good for the UK and stated that Ministers had given away too much for too little. He underlined the need to recognise failures in negotiations with other countries such as CPTPP.

The agreements will remove tariffs, make it easier for British businesses to invest in Australia and New Zealand and deliver growth to every part of our country. They will also address trade barriers faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, such as lengthy costs and procedures, and allow our citizens to work more freely in both countries, thanks to new environmental commitments for businesses and travel. The agreements include protections that collectively allow us to apply higher tariffs to protect UK farmers for up to 20 years. Our deals include tariff rate quotas for sensitive agricultural products; specific additional protective measures for beef and lamb products; and a general bilateral safeguard mechanism that will allow the UK to increase tariffs or suspend their liberalisation for up to four years if needed. The trade deals do not compromise on environmental, animal welfare, and food standards. Contrary to Labour's description of the scrutiny process, extensive commitments have been made to support robust scrutiny of all new free trade agreements.

Asked the Minister to name one single amendment that the Government have accepted from the SNP on any trade deal. Highlighted travel disruption and difficulties from Scotland.

Inquired about the impact of the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' statements on constituents in a rural constituency.

Asked why it would have been such a big deal to require an enduring TRQ of Australia and New Zealand that was generous but within a fixed envelope, given the current usage by New Zealand.

Responded 'You have!' to a statement during interventions.

Raised concerns about the failure of Ministers to deliver on commitments made in September regarding visa expeditions for constituents and sought advice on how to resolve this serious problem where urgent and potentially life-threatening cases are ignored.

Responded to a point of order raised by the hon. Lady, emphasising that while the Chair is not responsible for Ministers' answers, they should follow through on their commitments and respond to urgent matters in a timely manner. Advised the hon. Lady to continue pursuing her concerns and highlighted that Clerks at the Table Office can provide guidance.