Dear Constituent,
Thank you for contacting me about maintaining British food production standards ahead of any future trade deals.
I fully recognise the importance the public attach to the UK’s high standards of food production, and the unique selling point it provides for our farmers, whose high-quality produce is in demand around the world.
British consumers want high welfare produce and if our trading partners want to break into the UK market, they should expect to meet those standards. The manifesto I stood on was clear that in all trade negotiations, our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards will not be compromised. The Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure any deals live up to the values of our farmers and consumers.
I am pleased that all food coming into this country will be required to meet existing import requirements. The EU Withdrawal Act will transfer all existing EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, onto the UK statute book. These import standards include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products and set out that no products, other than potable water, are approved to decontaminate poultry carcasses. Any changes to existing food safety legislation would require new legislation to be brought before Parliament.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission has now been launched which will ensure that the voices of the public and industry are heard, and that their interests are advanced and protected. It will advise the Government on how Britain can remain a world-leader in animal welfare and environmental standards, and how we can seize new export opportunities for our farmers.
I believe that the Lord’s amendments to the Agriculture Bill on trade risk adverse effects. The amendment requiring imports of food and agricultural goods to meet domestic standards, for example, would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals and I know that such conditions are not in place for imports under agreements negotiated during our membership of the EU. It would be unlikely that trading partners would agree to all requirements and in some cases, it might not even be possible for them to do so. As an example, it wouldn’t make sense to require trading partners with certain climates or environments to meet UK requirements on nitrate vulnerable zones, which are specifically adapted to UK conditions.
We must drive a hard bargain for access to our market, but we have to recognise that the more new conditions these amendments place on UK imports, the larger the trade off against access for our agri-food products to the markets of our trading partners. These amendments therefore cast doubt on the benefits that any trade deal could secure for UK agri-food businesses.
This could most immediately disrupt negotiations on those trade agreements that we are seeking to roll-over, but have not yet ratified, and put at risk preferential terms for UK exports. In a worst-case scenario this could for example affect whisky exports to Canada worth £96m; potato exports to Egypt worth £30m; and milk powder exports to Algeria worth £21m in 2019. In demanding the wide requirements set out in the amendments, we must therefore consider the cost that could come to not only these exports, but any future potential in our new agreements.
If the UK required new validation processes to be set up to ensure agricultural imports entering the UK met a vast range of domestic standards of production as stipulated under the amendments, these processes would rely on trade partner cooperation as partners would be responsible for assessing and documenting that those of their own domestic suppliers choosing to export to the UK met the prescribed standards. The more standards that are added, the greater the cost for developing countries, as the infrastructure and processes required to meet validation against the new UK food production standards register may not already be in place. This could adversely impact upon the economic wellbeing of many farmers in developing countries.
Furthermore, the amendment changing the role and structure of the Trade and Agriculture Commission is unnecessary given the strength of membership, its broad representation and extensive remit. I am content that the UK will maintain a strong institutional framework for upholding the quality and safety of the food we import and consume through a range of Government departments, agencies and bodies such as the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland, the Animal and Plant Health Agency, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive.
Finally, I am pleased that the Government are already engaging with the agricultural sector as part of its trade discussions, including the National Farmers Union. It is encouraging that my ministerial colleagues share my determination to ensure our future trade agreements will deliver benefits for our brilliant farmers and food producers. I am also pleased that the Scottish Parliament have given legislative consent for the Agriculture Bill.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Kind regards, Alister