Thank you to the many constituents who have recently got in
touch regarding the Agriculture Bill amendments. Due to the vast volume of
campaign emails I receive I cannot respond individually so I am posting my
thoughts and views here.
Outside of the EU, we can replace Brussels’ Common
Agricultural Policy, which has never worked for British farmers, with a new
system that truly works for the UK.
Through the landmark Agriculture Bill, we will introduce an
ambitious new land management scheme in England, based on the principle of
public money for public goods, where farmers are rewarded for the work they do
to safeguard the environment and help us meet crucial goals on climate change.
The government has made an unequivocal commitment in our
manifesto that we will never compromise on our high environmental and animal
welfare standards in trade negotiations.
As we build back greener from coronavirus, we will ensure
our farmers have the support they need, our environment is protected for future
generations and our high standards are maintained.
Regarding the amendments:
First, I should say that two of the many reasons I supported
the UK leaving the European Union are relevant here. The first is because I
have great faith in UK farmers and their produce. The UK has
exceptionally driven producers, with high standards. Brexit affords the UK not
only the opportunity to devise a support system for UK farmers which does not
fund their rivals in the EU, is reactive to their needs, and rewards good
practices; it also creates opportunities for our producers to trade more widely
if we are able to strike and agree good free trade agreements as well as
smaller deals. We have just last month with the first beef exports to the
United States in over 20 years, what incredible opportunities there are for UK
farmers, and it is important we harness those.
The second reason I want to highlight is that of developing
countries. The UK has and does play a pivotal role in enabling
producers in developing countries to expand their horizons. Trade is key to
ending poverty and deprivation in so many developing nations. The EU’s Common
Agricultural Policy subsidises continental European farmers to produce food in
quantities that we cannot eat. Those heavily subsidised surpluses completely
distort African and other markets, undercutting the prices of domestically
produced food. This make it impossible for impoverished African farmers to
compete, and impossible for them to make a sustainable living.
Bearing in mind those two key drivers in my approach to our
future trade and agricultural policy, I have examined the amendments tabled by
the Lords, and find them problematic. We all want to maintain our
excellent food standards; it is what makes UK produce so appealing to global
markets and it is the type of food domestic consumers wish to buy. That is why
I welcomed the Government’s establishment of the Trade and Agriculture
Commission to oversee food standards rigorously and independently.
However, the stipulations laid out in the Lords amendments
create a potentially large set of new conditions that imports under trade
agreements would have to meet. These are conditions that do not exist under any
agreement the UK or EU has today. 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.
The UK imported an average of £213mn of black tea per year
between 2017 and 2019, of which £142mn was from Kenya. Well known British tea
brands including Taylors of Harrogate based in Yorkshire, Twinings of
Hampshire, and Spicers of Tyne and Wear are key recipients of tea imports.
Similarly, coffee imports to the UK totalled, on average,
£108m per year within the same time period, the majority of which was from
Vietnam, at £43m. Kenco and Union Coffee, based in Oxfordshire and East London
respectively, are British producers of a variety of different coffee products
sold directly to UK consumers as well as to other businesses in the retail and
hospitality sector, including Waitrose, Ocado, Gail’s Bakery and Peach Pubs. If
Vietnam, and other developing countries that produce coffee beans exported to
the UK, such as Ghana and Indonesia, were expected to provide evidence that
they met UK carbon emission targets as set out in the Climate Change Act, the
UK retail and hospitality sector would be heavily impacted.
Bananas are imported into the UK in large numbers every year
from a variety of developing countries including the Dominican Republic,
Belize, and Cameroon. The supply chain of bananas features UK supermarkets and
food retailers both directly and via British manufacturers of, for example,
cereal products, confectionary and desserts. Companies such as Jordans Cereals,
based in Bedfordshire, and Dorset Cereals, based in Dorset, are examples of UK
food manufacturers who contribute to the import of £105mn worth of bananas on
average per year (2017-19). These companies would likely face huge supply chain
disruption if the developing countries’ imports could not economically provide
evidence of meeting existing UK legislation on the protection of animals,
plants and habitats. A similar problem would be faced by British confectionary
and dessert manufacturers such as Tunnock’s, based in Glasgow; Cadbury, based
in the West Midlands; Gü, based in Hertfordshire; and Mr Kipling, based in West
Yorkshire, if the 2017-19 annual average of £70mn of cocoa bean imports from
countries such as Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria were affected.
I hope this outlines why I cannot support amendments which
would have such a catastrophic effect, not only on the future potential of UK
agricultural businesses but would have a devastating impact on our existing
imports, which are not only vital products in the UK market, but would also
have a terrible impact on the exports so vital to the economies of developing
nations.
I couldn’t support any amendment that would have such
devastating consequences for the UK’s food supply and our ability to strike
trade agreements which will benefit our producers.
You can see some more specific details on legislation below:
The legislation for the hormones in beef ban is contained in
EU legislation 2003/74/EC, the provisions of which now form part of UK law.
On chlorinated chicken – retained EU law under Section 3 of
the WA. Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 defines ‘potable water’ as water meeting
the minimum requirements laid down in Directive 98/83/EC.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays
down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business
operators. It provides that food business operators are not to use any
substance other than potable water to remove surface contamination from
products of animal origin, unless the use of the substance has been approved in
accordance with that Regulation.
I have been in discussions with DEFRA Ministers about the
importance for extensive, informative and easy to understand labelling once the
Brexit transition period is at an end. It should be known that currently,
about a third of all the chicken that is eaten in this country is imported from
Thailand.
Think about the chicken eaten in ready meals, chicken kievs,
frozen chicken nuggets and the like. I would like to see labelling that
makes this explicit, then, at least, consumers have the choice as to whether
they shop purely on price or by using other attributes. I would like to
see this extended to take-aways and restaurants as well as supermarkets.
My hope is that consumer choice will then drive demand for British free-range
chicken, using this example, in all aspects of our consumption.
If you would like to contact me further about the Bill or
any other matter then please don’t hesitate to contact me: cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk
