Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the biosecurity aspect of this issue. My farmers, too, have been significantly impacted by foot and mouth disease in the past, and I know how important an issue that is. She puts her point on the record.

I was talking about potential arguments around food prices. Research from Animal Policy International shows that were we to act on this issue, the cost to consumers would actually be very small. Banning battery cage egg imports, for example, would cost just 2p to 4p per person per year. Since all major supermarkets have already committed to phasing out caged eggs, most consumers would feel zero impact, with battery cage imports going to independent retailers and food service as it stands. The boost to domestic farmers, by contrast, would be huge. UK egg farmers could gain up to £15 million annually if battery cage imports were banned. There would also be price stabilisation if we removed imports that undercut UK eggs by up to 20p per dozen. That does not cost the Exchequer; it would be quite a significant benefit to the Exchequer.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I was at Noble Foods last week, as part of the National Farmers Union’s food and farming fellowship programme. The issue, it was explained, is not just lower welfare standards. We need to ensure that eggs are safe. My hon. Friend is too young to remember it, but I remember the salmonella outbreak when I was a teenager. We have to be clear that food safety is as important for imported goods as it is for home-grown produce.

[Sam Carling]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I remember doing that scheme myself last year. It was incredibly valuable, and I encourage other colleagues to do it. The NFU is doing a brilliant job. Polls show that consumers do not want low-welfare imports either; nine in 10 people support banning them. That may be unsurprising—we are a nation of animal lovers, after all—but that level of cross-societal support on an issue is rare and should be celebrated.

Some 81% of my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire is agricultural land, which means I spend a lot of time talking to farmers about what they need to thrive, and this issue comes up all the time. Members do not have to take my word on that; they can take the words of Lloyd and Mat, two farmers I know from Lodes End farm in Ramsey in my constituency:

“We grow high quality produce, to high standards. Sometimes, for little and often no profit. To see imported produce coming into our country that doesn’t meet the same standards that we have to achieve seems wrong. We want a level playing field and to feel that we are valued. So much effort, time, passion and pride goes into everything we grow on the farm. We not only grow quality produce but also do this while improving habitats for wildlife and reducing our environmental impact. Farmers do so much more than just produce the food we eat—we are an integral part of the communities we are proud to call home. We need to back British farming.”

Who could disagree with Lloyd and Mat on that? It is certainly not easy to be a farmer. Long, difficult work is set against razor-thin profit margins, unpredictable weather variability made worse by climate change, and distinct unfairness in the supply chain.

So what is the ask here? If we are doing so well as a Government on new trade deals, what change am I advocating for? We need legislative change to tackle the flaws in previous trade deals, which are damaging farmers like Lloyd and Mat. I am glad that the Government are backing farmers, and are allocating a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over the course of this Parliament, but tackling the unfairness of low-welfare imports would make a real difference to farmers in my constituency and across the country. Indeed, just on Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence on how important a fair approach on imports is to farm profitability.

This is not just about welfare standards; it is about environmental standards, too. Crops that have been treated with damaging pesticides are being sold in the UK, despite those pesticides being banned here. That is not good news for the environment. Imidacloprid— I hope I pronounced that correctly—a neonicotinoid highly toxic to bees, has been banned in the UK since 2018, yet it has been found in the UK on potatoes, peas and grapes imported from several countries.

As with lower-welfare imports, the UK will face pressure to weaken our domestic pesticide standards to secure new trade deals. Pesticide Action Network has highlighted potential pitfalls of the India trade deal, particularly as India allows the use of 62% more pesticides that are classed as highly hazardous than the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is being kept under review.

We know what happens when we compromise our standards for trade; I am afraid the Conservatives did it often. The previous Government’s flawed Australia agreement increased sheepmeat imports by 162%, despite many Australian lambs being subjected to live skin cuttings without anaesthetic in a painful process known as mulesing, which was banned in the UK by the previous Labour Government. Our sheep farmers certainly did not thank the Conservatives for the impact that trade deal had, and is still having, on their livelihoods.

With the US reportedly demanding that the UK adopt lower standards in trade talks, I am glad that we have been clear in response that our food standards are a red line, and that we have committed to high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in any deal. That is exactly the approach we need, but we must be consistent about it. Change has support across the board, notably from the NFU and animal welfare bodies like Animal Policy International, both of which I thank for their ongoing work in this area. It also has strong support across the political divide, with massive majorities of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters supporting banning imports of animal products produced by farming methods that are banned in the UK.

What does change look like in practice? All campaigners and the public want is consistency—to ensure that all agricultural products sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, adhere to British welfare and quality standards. If it is not good enough to be produced in Britain, it should not be sold here, either. Legally, there is precedent in several areas. Slaughter standards are consistent; certification is required to ensure that imports are slaughtered to standards that are at least equivalent to UK standards. Shark fin imports and exports are completely banned; the Ivory Act 2018 bans the import of ivory products; and we ban the import and sale of cat and dog fur. There are numerous precedents that can be applied here, and it makes sense to do so across the board.

World Trade Organisation case law says that the UK can apply its animal welfare standards to imports, and the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission has confirmed that the UK’s free trade agreements do not prevent us from implementing stricter import regulations based on welfare standards. Will the Minister consider legislation to require imported animal products to meet British welfare standards, as is already the case for slaughter standards?

Aligning imports with our domestic standards is backed by farmers and consumers, backed across the political spectrum, and backed by rural, environmental and animal welfare organisations. We have strong legislative precedent, and we have legal clarity. We know that the impact on prices would be negligible, and that our economy would benefit. We would have confidence in the welfare of our animal products, and in the quality of fruit and vegetables on shop shelves. These are big, tangible benefits. Taking action would do so much for Lloyd and Mat in my constituency, and for thousands of others like them across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This Government have shown promising signs so far. Let us build on that and take the next crucial step.