A report on the Government’s negotiations with the European Union (EU) over the trade of meat, animal and plant products has been published by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee, stating that a future deal “must avoid disadvantaging UK agriculture and meat businesses”.
According to the Committee, a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU could “bring many benefits” for UK consumers, farmers and producers if it lowers costs by removing the need for border checks and other red tape, and makes supply chains more resilient.
The report outlines potential problems that the Committee believes should be avoided as the UK faces potentially having to change regulations in a number of areas to align with the EU. MPs also emphasise the need for the Government to communicate effectively with the public about potential pros and cons of an SPS deal regarding decisions on regulations.
The Committee outlined a number of recommendations in the report:
Animal welfare standards
The Committee recommended that in any future agreement, Ministers should seek a Swiss-style exemption from the principle of dynamic alignment with the EU regarding animal welfare standards.
In addition, it said the Government should ensure UK farmers are not undercut by products from EU countries with lower animal welfare standards, and said the Government should set out the practical measures it will take to protect producers.
Precision breeding
The report detailed how the Government should seek an exemption from dynamic alignment with EU regulations for the growing and selling of precision-bred products in England.
Pesticide and maximum residue regulations
The Committee said the Government should seek assurances, as a core requirement of any SPS framework, that GB scientific evidence – including agronomic and climatic data – would be incorporated into all new science-based decisions affecting UK agriculture.
Communicating with businesses and public
It was recommended that Government should set out in its response to the report how it intends to communicate the realities of dynamic alignment – not only to affected businesses, farmers, producers and industry stakeholders, but also the wider public.
Parliament’s role in scrutinising future EU policy changes
The Committee said it would continue to scrutinise both the negotiations and any eventual SPS agreement, as well as its implementation. It called for Government to publish detailed plans for parliamentary scrutiny of the SPS agreement and any future EU legislation that would be assimilated into GB law once within a common SPS area.
Veterinary and Medicines Agreement for Northern Ireland
The Government should actively pursue a Veterinary Medicines Agreement with the EU in tandem with the SPS agreement to facilitate smoother trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, said the Committee. It said that in its response to this report, the Government should set out its priorities and timeline for such an agreement.
Changes “will need time”
The Committee urged the Government to build realistic implementation periods of at least 24 months for any regulatory changes that arise from dynamic alignment with the EU once the SPS agreement comes into force.
It went on to say that the Government should set out its contingency plans for the SPS negotiations, recognising that an SPS agreement is not guaranteed. It said these should set out how core functions such as biosecurity, border operations and regulatory oversight will continue if negotiations take longer or fail, and how reprioritisation of resources will be managed to avoid undermining critical work.
The report can be accessed here.
EFRA committee chair Alistair Carmichael MP said: “Making it easier to trade with our European neighbours should present a feast of benefits for British businesses, farmers and consumers. But there is a lot on the menu for the Government to consider, and our recommendations aim to help Ministers set the table.
“For starters, we strongly urge the Government to aim for a Swiss-style carve out of dynamic alignment with the EU regarding animal welfare. We must avoid unnecessary burdens and undercutting of farmers from products produced abroad where animals are treated worse than in the UK. This would present a zero-sum game and a threat to our already wary industry.
“The use of pesticides is also a delicate subject. It would be a mistake for dynamic alignment to lead to products that are banned in the EU also being outlawed in the UK despite not having been tested in our climate and production systems. Similarly, we should not let regulatory alignment squander the benefits reaped from our scientific innovations with precision breeding.
“A veterinary and medicines deal that would benefit trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is long overdue and should be worked towards in tandem with SPS talks.
“We recognise the potential benefits of an SPS agreement but are especially concerned that failures to communicate effectively with the public about the pros and cons of dynamic regulatory alignment on any subject could cause political upset. We need a national conversation on the realities of a future agreement. There is also the unresolved question of how Parliament should scrutinise any regulatory changes that are made in Europe if they then need to be adopted here. This Committee will continue to take the reins on any examination of SPS changes that affect this country.”
