On 12 October 2020 the Agriculture Bill returned to the House of Commons, which voted down the amendments added by the House of Lords. The Lords amendments would have required that food products imported into the U.K. under future trade deals meet U.K. standards. They would also have required that the new Trade and Agriculture Commission be given a statutory role in reviewing trade agreements.
This is absolutely part of a pattern. The U.K. government has now used its 80 seat majority in the House of Commons to overturn amendments in the Agriculture Bill designed to give legal protection to animal welfare and environmental standards; to overturn amendments to the Fisheries Bill requiring catch limits to be based on sustainability and science; and to replace objective legal environmental standards in the Environment Bill with large measures of Ministerial discretion. In each case Ministers have given verbal assurances that high UK standards will be maintained, while retaining maximum discretion to be able to negotiate compromises in future trade negotiations. Are these verbal assurances like the fable of the house made of straw made by the first little pig to be gobbled up by the wicked wolf?
The National Farmers’ Union (‘NFU’) has been very clear, for months, that it is essential to have U.K. agricultural standards reflected in the law, otherwise they risk being brushed aside in future trade negotiations, particularly with the United States. The E.U. takes the opposite view, threatening that any reduction of the ‘level playing field’ of environmental standards will be one of the factors preventing a U.K./E.U. Future Trade Agreement. Many farmers fear that a U.K./U.S. trade agreement could have economic consequences on a par with the repeal of the Corn Laws, exposing them to cheaper foreign competition from food produced with lower, and cheaper, welfare and environmental standards. These fears are reflected in the farming press and farming communities up and down the land.
The NFU has always been an effective lobby, and has marshalled celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, and a million external supporters of U.K. standards, to express support for the Lords amendments. Chlorine-washed American chicken is an over-used example, the use of hormone growth promoters for beef is another, and the American embrace of genetically modified crops and much more widespread pesticide use (compared to, for example, the E.U., which has promised to halve pesticide use) are other examples. The dismissal by the U.K. government of widely held public opinion that these standards needed legal reinforcement raises quite separate arguments about whether Parliament is working as it should.
Secretary of State for International Trade Liz Truss puts the party line thus, in arguing that legally underpinned standards are not needed and that there is no (clear and present) danger that they will be undermined in trade negotiations –
“We are absolutely clear that we are going to stand up for our high standards in any deal we strike, including with the U.S.”
It is instructive to consider the negotiating objectives for agriculture published by the U.S Department for Agriculture -
“Agricultural Goods
- Secure comprehensive market access for U.S. agricultural goods in the UK by reducing or eliminating tariffs.
- Provide reasonable adjustment periods for U.S. import-sensitive agricultural products, engaging in close consultation with Congress on such products before initiating tariff reduction negotiations.
- Eliminate practices that unfairly decrease U.S. market access opportunities or distort agricultural markets to the detriment of the United States, including:
∙ Non-tariff barriers that discriminate against U.S. agricultural goods; and
∙ Restrictive rules in the administration of tariff rate quotas.
Promote greater regulatory compatibility to reduce burdens associated with unnecessary differences in regulations and standards, including through regulatory cooperation where appropriate.
- Establish specific commitments for trade in products developed through agricultural biotechnologies, including on transparency, cooperation, and managing low level presence issues, and a mechanism for exchange of information and enhanced cooperation on agricultural biotechnologies. “
So, whatever U.S. practices are, the negotiating objectives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture will be to eliminate any rules or practices in U.K. law that have the effect of restricting them. If U.K. rules were artificially constructed barriers to trade, that might be understandable, but where they represent what large numbers of U.K. citizens want and demand in terms of welfare standards, giving up on them will not exactly represent ‘taking back control’. It is doubtful that a U.S. administration led by Joe Biden would be widely different in its approach to advancing U.S. agricultural interests in trade talks.
For the avoidance of doubt, U.S. Secretary of State for Agriculture Sonny Purdue spelled out exactly what he meant in a recent interview. A question was put to him by Fiona Harvey of the Guardian –
Q. “Will the U.S. accept a post-Brexit trade deal that excludes food and agricultural products that are produced to standards that would not be accepted in the EU?”
A .….”We are not – absolutely will not agree to policies that restrict our methods of production to any other standards outside of this country. While we will absolutely accede to international standards of health and safety which we believe to be very measurable and objective, we do not intend to abide by any types of methods of production based on perception or anything else that’s not scientific.”
It is good to see a re-affirmation, from this U.S. administration, of the central role of science in policy making. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will doubtless argue that all of America’s methods of production are measurably and objectively scientific. However, a cattle rancher friend in Texas receives a premium of $300 a head on cattle raised without the use of growth promoting hormones: is that as a result of a perception, or science?
What this debate underlines is that with Brexit, the U.K. is leaving one system of regulation, one agreed set of animal welfare and environmental standards, as expressed in EU law. With the chronic limits of proper Parliamentary debate and scrutiny brought about by COVID-19 restrictions, it has not yet established on the basis of public acceptance and consent, what standards it wants to apply, and what its public demands and accepts. It is therefore vulnerable to being blown this way and that when engaged in tough trade negotiations with powerful countries and trading blocs. The U.K. government’s response, can be summarised as “Trust me, I’m a Minister”. The contrary view is that we need standards based on law and not Ministerial discretion, especially until our national circumstances allow for a proper measure of public opinion and a basis for public consent. The pandemic has shown inadequate consultation of devolved and local governments, a willingness to dismiss the reports of Parliamentary committees, petitions, trade associations and public opinion, an intolerance of dissent. As we emerge from COVID-19 hibernation, we will need better ways of refreshing the accountability of government to Parliament, and Parliament to people.