皇家华人

Here we analyse the detail behind three common misconceptions on food standards and highlights why the NFU is continuing to campaign on the importance of future trade deals and ensuring Britain’s farmers are not undermined by imports of food that are produced to lower production standards.

1. Standards are already safeguarded in law

The idea that our food standards are already safeguarded in law in the the EU Withdrawal Act, is only partially true.

The fact that the EU Withdrawal Act has already transferred protections against ‘chlorinated chicken’ and ‘Hormone-injected beef’ is often stated in reference to our standards already being safeguarded in law. This assertion relates to our current SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) protections and it is correct that both chicken or beef produced with these methods cannot be marketed in the UK. After January that will still be the case. Therefore legal safeguards will remain, and imports of these products will not be allowed.

However, public concerns are often over production standards (e.g. animal welfare and environmental sustainability) whereas the regulations and bans we are given reassurances about are purely on the grounds of food safety. So it is misleading when we are told that raising concerns about the standards of imports fails to acknowledge those standards are already safe in law. Some standards are, but some are not. , when she outlined that there could be no blanket ban on any food products that do not comply with British farm regulations.

Currently, there are no measures in UK law to restrict imports because animal welfare or environmental protection standards fall below our own.

The line we’re given on standards is a little like being told the government is tackling violent crime, and then being told that gun control laws prove this. Up to a point, this is true. But one might ask “what about knife-crime”, or indeed all crime not committed with guns.

This shortcoming is largely a result of WTO / International Trade Law, not of UK domestic law. It is worth saying that this is precisely the sort of issue that the Trade & Agriculture Commission (TAC) is looking at – how international trade laws and government policy can accommodate concerns on animal welfare grounds for example.

2. MPs will never vote for trade deals that compromise standards

MPs reassuring us that they would never vote for trade deals that compromise standards is good to hear, but in reality, there are complexities involved that mean this may not always be possible.

Firstly, it is important to remember that laws are made through primary or secondary legislation. Primary legislation are public Bills, such as the Agriculture Bill, that then become Acts of Parliament once ratified. But parliament can make minor adjustments to existing laws via secondary legislation. Statutory Instruments (SIs) are the main device for effecting secondary legislation, and there are lots of them. An average of 3,000 instruments were issued annually from 2010 to June 2019.

Most SIs go through something called . This procedure assumes that a statutory instrument is acceptable unless action is taken to the contrary. This means they are “laid” in Parliament and automatically become law after a set number of days, unless MPs organise themselves to vote against (“annul”).

However, MPs are not provided with a specific vote or debate to do so. As a result, these instruments almost never get annulled. The last time MPs annulled a negative Statutory Instrument was 1979 - 41 years ago. Only two current serving MPs were in Parliament then – so 648 of our 650 MPs have never even witnessed this happening.

So while an MP may honestly mean it when they say they wouldn’t vote to lower food standards, in reality they may not get the opportunity to, since the details of food safety provisions in the UK are primarily governed through this type of secondary legislation.

Currently, trade deals are also subject to negative resolution procedure, which means when a trade deal is tabled in Parliament, if MPs do not vote against it within 21 days it is automatically ratified. There is no requirement for a vote or a debate. If MPs were to vote against it (and a treaty has never in fact even been voted on under these mechanisms), government is able to re-table the deal and the 21-day clock starts again.

It is clear that procedures for scrutinising trade deals should be streamlined and simplified.

But more can be done to give parliament the opportunity to consider the details of trade deals.

3. The government spelled out clear guarantees on standards in its manifesto

皇家华人welcomed the Conservative’s manifesto commitment not to compromise on standards in trade deals, and welcomes the . But its not reasonable to expect these brief, verbal assurances to be sufficient in allaying farmers’ very real concerns.

That’s because the government has other commitments that could make its pledges on standards hard to fulfil. For example, the government is committed to having 80% of trade covered by Free-Trade Agreements (FTAs) by 2022, and it has chosen three countries that are major agricultural exporters to prioritise in these FTAs: USA, Australia and New Zealand

It is important to note that safeguarding standards and seeking trade deals with agricultural exporters, such as the US, are not mutually exclusive. But it will be incredibly difficult to ensure both commitments are met

Take this analogy:

Your child, fresh out of university, tells you they are taking a big job in London working for a multinational oil trading firm. They also tell you they’re simultaneously taking a job for an international charity based in Australia fighting against fossil fuel usage.

Now, you might think either, or possibly both, are a good move for a youngster embarking on their career. You may also ask how precisely they intend to do both at the same time. Maybe they have a plan, but you would understandably be keen to know it!

If their answer was simply – “I’ve told you I’m committed to doing it, isn’t that enough”, I suspect you’d feel – no, it’s not enough. You’d understandably want more details.

Unfortunately, that’s where many farmers feel they are with the government’s current trade policy – “Don’t worry, we’ve got your back. But we’re ploughing on with trade deals with the US and Australia and others.” That is fine, but the government has got to explain how?

In conclusion, honesty is the best policy

Ultimately, farmers up and down Britain have questions that still need answers. Precisely what agricultural products does the government envisage importing under these trade deals? How will they be produced? And if they are to be held to our standards how will this be legally achieved under the terms of the deal? Given what we know about what the US or Australians expect in any trade deal, how will domestic producers fare if tariffs are lowered on agricultural imports produced in different ways?

It is clear so far that there is a great deal of confusion about the future for UK agriculture. And we are getting to the point where we need honest answers from government on some of these questions. Trade deals mean winners and losers. 皇家华人sincerely hopes that in the UK it will mean more winners than losers in farming. But that’s not a given – especially when, again, the counter-parties are big agricultural producers looking hungrily at our domestic market.

Free Trade Agreements (and a broader approach to supporting free trade) that are ‘done right’ , should mean more winners than losers, especially over the longer term. But there will be casualties – and they don’t always work. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) don’t always mean benefits all round. For example, analysis of the US/Australian trade deal ten years after it was signed in 2005 has shown a fall in Australian and US trade with the rest of the world, and an association with a reduction in trade between Australia and the United States.

There will of course be those in UK farming who benefit. Pivoting away from the EU and signing trade deals with US, Australia and others could mean some British farmers will thrive - there will be new opportunities overseas for high value great British food. But some won’t, and UK farming will need to restructure.

But the current message we hear from policy-makers is that the government’s trade policy means nothing but a bright future for UK farming – with no nuance that this might not include all of those who are actually farming today. So let’s be realistic about the risks. If we are, we’ll be far better able to prepare for the changes ahead, helping some -hopefully many - farmers adapt to improve their competitiveness and seize the opportunities, while properly assisting those that are not able to.

More from 皇家华人:

• Lords again vote through Agriculture Bill amendments in favour of trade deal scrutiny
• Visit our dedicated Westminster channel
• Food standards: Minette Batters makes the issues clear in The Times and Mail on Sunday
• NFU Live: Events from the NFU this autumn
• Watch now: Your weekly video update from the President