Government engagement with the food sector over EU reset negotiations lags far behind that of EU institutions, and needs to urgently ramp up to avoid a slew of “unintended consequences”, the Commons Efra Committee chair has warned.
The “complete omertà” from the Cabinet Office over talks about a new Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) deal with the EU was “causing significant anxiety” within the food and farming sectors, said Alistair Carmichael MP, and introduced an “element of unnecessary risk” to the process of forging closer links with the bloc.
Speaking to The Grocer after his committee published a major report warning the UK could be left at a significant disadvantage if a deal based on “dynamic alignment” with EU rules was agreed “in haste”, Carmichael called for a the government to seek a number of “carve out” exemptions on regulatory alignment and “sufficient time to adapt to any changes”.
His comments come a week after plant protection industry body CropLife UK warned a failure of the UK government to safeguard the use of a number of vital pesticides could wipe more than £800m off the profits of UK farm businesses – with an immediate alignment with EU rules potentially leading to big falls in production volumes of key crops.
‘Lack of scrutiny’ on negotiations
The Liberal Democrat MP said his cross-party committee even remained in the dark over the scope of negotiations – the intensity of which have accelerated in recent weeks.
There was currently no insight into whether the key issues of animal welfare – and whether the UK’s regulations, including recently proposed legislation, would be respected in the SPS deal – in addition to the use of crop protection products and the UK’s position on precision breeding, which had diverged from EU regulations since the UK left the EU in 2020.
Read more: Food and drink trade with EU down by a quarter on pre-Brexit levels, FDF reveals
The government “must urgently clarify” whether on-farm animal welfare and labelling would be included in negotiations with the EU of an SPS agreement, the committee insisted, “so it can properly develop any future legislative changes, prepare industry for reforms and so those changes can be properly scrutinised”.
The scope of SPS negotiations – something the government has repeatedly insisted it would “not give a running commentary on” – also needed to be published on an interim basis, “prior to the conclusion of negotiations, to enable effective consultation and scrutiny”, the committee added.
Carmichael added he had concerns about the capacity within Defra to implement the deal, given its manpower constraints and focus on other key issues such as the water sector. “The animal welfare strategy too could end up eating parliamentary time up, I’m not at all convinced Defra is match fit for this,” he warned.
And he took aim at the “disappointing” failure of minister for European relations Nick Thomas-Symonds to appear before the Efra Committee as a glaring example of the lack of openness from the government.
‘Alarm bells’
“If that’s the way the government is planning on handling negotiations we need to sound alarm bells,” Carmichael warned. “But they can’t hide from scrutiny forever.”
This was in stark contrast to a recent trip by the Efra Committee to Brussels, which “demonstrated a clear appetite for [EU] member-level engagement to understand priorities and concerns on both sides”, the committee report revealed.
“The determination of the prime minister to get an early agreement and for it to be implemented into domestic law at the earliest possible moment is understandable politically,” Carmichael added, pointing to Keir Starmer’s recent comments that a deal could be poissible before the mid-2027 date that had been floated last year.
However, such a lack of scrutiny did not reflect “good government”, he added, with a bad deal for the food and farming sector “risking damaging public appetite for further integration at a later date”.
Dynamic alignment with the EU on SPS policy would require the government “to communicate honestly and accessibly with the public about the benefits and constraints of this model”, the committee urged.
“The government should set out in its response to this 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,” it added.
“Making it easier to trade with our European neighbours should present a feast of benefits for British businesses, farmers and consumers,” Carmichael said.
“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,” he urged.
Read more: Farmers facing £810m hit to profits from EU SPS deal crop chemical rule ‘alignment’
“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.”
A veterinary and medicines deal that would benefit trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK was also “long overdue and should be worked towards in tandem with SPS talks”, he added.
“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,” the MP said.
“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.”
No comments yet