opinion A STEP FORWARD
One of the most contentious issues, in the run-up to the UK’s final exit from the institutions of the EU on 1 January 2021, is the future shape and direction of the UK’s future food and environmental policy, the proposed domestic successor to the institutions and policies of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. The Common Agricultural Policy attracted opposition from
many UK institutions, not least because of its perceived cost and comprehensive character. It governed, directly or indirectly, a wide range of issues regarding the environment, animal welfare and food standards: in short, the bulk of the agribusiness portfolio. It became the focus of leavers who saw it as epitomising the Brussels bureaucracy and is thought to have constituted a significant, perhaps major element in the decision of the UK’s electorate to vote to leave the EU. There was, in the wake of the UK’s departure from the EU,
the clear need to formulate a successor framework for the future of agricultural and food policy in the UK and this was constituted by the publication of the Agriculture Bill early in 2020. This piece of legislation fundamentally changed direct payments to farming and, instead, made provision for payments to be made only on the basis of the provision of ‘public goods’ which are aimed at ‘protecting and enhancing the environmental impact of food production’. The Agriculture Bill focused on sustainability, with particular emphasis on soil health, biodiversity, flood protection, plant and animal welfare, cultural heritage and public access to the countryside. In addition to the Bill’s focus on sustainability, the Bill also set out new provisions for clarity across the supply chain to ensure fair competition. There seems little doubt that part of the Bill’s background was
the significance, as seen by the British government, of securing new trading agreements with the rest of the world, following the UK’s exit from the EU. An agreement with the United States was regarded as critical. The US agricultural lobby had long sought to secure improved access for its products and, in the context of the UK’s departure from the EU, the debate over future UK farm policy became encapsulated in the controversy over US produced chlorinated chicken and hormone- treated beef. A new, non-statutory body, the Trade and Agriculture Commission, was introduced with the remit to advise the government to ensure that new trade policies secure export opportunities for UK farmers while upholding high standards. Farmers and consumer groups have repeatedly voiced concern that trade deals could result in imports of food produced using methods that are illegal in the UK. The Agriculture Bill duly went before Parliament where an amendment sought, in the House of Lords, to ensure that agricultural and food imports met UK production and animal welfare standards.
This amendment failed. A second amendment, seeking to make the Trade and Agriculture Commission overseeing trade deals a statutory, rather than an advisory body, was unable to be debated as ‘the Speaker advised it would impose a charge on the public revenue’. It seems clear that the standards motion had drawn wide-ranging public support, including from government supporting newspapers and a petition reportedly signed by more than one million consumers. Minette Batters, NFU President, said that ‘once again the Commons has debated the Agriculture Bill without any binding commitments on how to safeguard UK farmers’ high standards of animal welfare and environmental protection in our trade policy’. She further argued that, without proper safeguards, future trade deals risked seeing an increase in food imports that had been produced to standards that would not be permitted in the UK. Following the rejection by the Commons of the two House of
Lords amendments, their Lordships reinstated both their proposed amendments. The Agriculture Bill returned to the House of Commons in early November. However, while one of the amendments which sought to protect UK farmers from imported foods produced to lower standards than those applying in the UK was rejected once again, in a surprise move the Defra Secretary, George Eustice, and Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, signalled their acceptance of the Trade and Agriculture Commission amendment in a Sunday newspaper article. Subsequently, the government then tabled its own amendment to the Agriculture Bill, making the Trade and Agriculture Commission a statutory, rather than an advisory body. While full details of how the Trade and Agriculture Commission will
work are not yet fully available, the Commission’s basic remit requires the government ‘to report to Parliament on whether, or to what extent, commitments in new Free Trade Agreements relating to agricultural goods are consistent with maintaining UK levels of statutory protection in relation to human, animal and plant life and health; animal welfare; and environmental protection’. This is an important development inasmuch as the UK has still to negotiate free trade agreements regarding food and agriculture and food with a number of countries, including the EU. It has been welcomed by NFU President Minette Batters who said that the significant commitment to primary legislation on food standards in the Agriculture Bill and Trade Bill, ‘is exactly what we have been calling for’, adding that it was ‘a landmark moment for the people of the UK, for our countryside and the future of the food on our plates’. We shall see. There are still important elements of future UK
agricultural policy that remain unclear. But, as a first step forward, the Bill is to be welcomed.
PAGE 2 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2020 FEED COMPOUNDER
Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd
www.cfegroup.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
