Agricultural Sector: Import Standards
Debate between Josh Newbury and Charlie Dewhirst(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this vital debate and for his thoughtful speech, and I extend that to other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, too. It is an important opportunity for us to consider an issue that sits at the intersection of the food we eat, trade, animal welfare and the sustainability of our rural economy.
The UK’s post-Brexit free trade agreements have rightly opened up new opportunities for British exporters, but they have also raised concerns about how imports are produced, particularly as we look to increase our welfare ambitions. By cutting tariffs on agricultural products from partner countries, those deals can unintentionally allow products to enter the UK that are produced to far lower animal welfare or environmental standards than those expected of our farmers. These are not minor issues; they go to the heart of how we support our brilliant domestic producers and how we maintain public confidence in the food we eat.
Practices that are banned or tightly regulated in the UK—conventional battery cages for hens, sow stalls, tail docking of pigs, and certain pesticides—remain permitted elsewhere, and those products inevitably end up on our supermarket shelves. Without clear protections, imports produced in that way risk undercutting our farmers, and they undermine the principle that high welfare production should be the norm, not just for British producers.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which advises the Government on trade deals, has highlighted those differences and warned that they have both ethical and economic consequences. British farmers investing in high-welfare sustainable production should not be left competing on an uneven playing field against imports produced more cheaply by cutting corners. That applies to raw materials as well as finished products.
On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I sit on heard from the formidable Baroness Batters about her profitability review. She mentioned a comment made by Sir Liam Fox, who, as Trade Secretary, argued that the UK should shift post Brexit to importing cheaply produced raw materials and then add value to them under the Union flag. I agree with Baroness Batters that we should reject that reductive view of the value of the excellent raw materials that our British farmers produce. We should be proud of and protect them.
Many organisations, including the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association, have called for core standards for imported agrifood products. These standards would ensure that all food sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, meets the welfare, environmental and production standards expected by the British public. It is entirely reasonable for consumers to expect that pork, beef, eggs or poultry produced abroad meet very similar, or the same, requirements as those produced here.
Two other realities that we have to confront in this debate and which the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, which I chair, has discussed at length are the cost of food and keeping our shelves stocked. As someone who represents a constituency with pockets of deep deprivation, including neighbourhoods that are among the 5% most deprived in the country, I am concerned that a rapid move to equalise all import standards could have a knock-on effect on food prices, which, as I am sure hon. Members right across the House will be aware, have been very high, particularly over the last five years. Equally, we do not want to see a repeat of the empty shelves that we all remember from the pandemic, which brought home the fragility of just-in-time food supply chains when unexpected disruption hits. As my hon. Friend said, these issues are interlinked, and the more we undermine our domestic supply, the more prices will go up and the more reliant we will become on overseas imports.
The Government have recognised these varied concerns. In the trade strategy published last June, it was clear that the Government will uphold high animal welfare standards and will not lower food standards to accommodate imports. It explicitly acknowledged practices that are not allowed domestically, such as sow stalls and battery cages, and committed to assessing whether those imports have an unfair advantage. I hope it will find that they do.
Where necessary, powers such as quotas, exclusions and safeguards will be used to protect domestic sectors that are most at risk. That approach is welcome. It strikes a balance between maintaining the benefits of free trade and ensuring that British farmers are not undermined. But as we have seen in previous trade deals, including in discussions with the United States, it is vital that those protections are clear, enforceable and applied consistently. Without them, we risk creating a market where the lowest welfare products set the price and not the highest standards.
Equally important is transparency for consumers. Recent polling by Opinium for Humane World for Animals shows that the British public often misunderstand what products labelled as, for example, “welfare assured” or that carry the Red Tractor logo actually guarantee. For example, 65% of people incorrectly believe that “welfare assured” prohibits keeping pigs and chickens in cages and 67% believe it prohibits the use of CO2 for slaughter. If consumers discovered that labelling does not match the reality they think it does, nearly half would feel misled, angry or disappointed.
Mandatory labelling is vital. It will protect consumers, support domestic producers and ensure that imported products adhere to the same high standards—or at least that we can see if they do not. Public support for stronger labelling measures is overwhelming, with 77% backing a new animal welfare labelling law and three quarters supporting stricter enforcement by trading standards and the Advertising Standards Authority to prevent misleading claims.
I acknowledge that getting labelling right will require many tricky balances, and that there is only so much space on a packet. I do not downplay those issues, but by combining robust import standards with transparent labelling, the Government could ensure that trade works for farmers, for animals and for consumers alike, reinforcing confidence in the British food system while maintaining fairness and ethical standards.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member highlights an important point about the challenges of potential welfare labelling. If imports are not labelled in the same way, as they probably would not be, British producers could be put at a disadvantage when it comes to what a consumer might think about how something has been produced. We must be conscious of that.
Josh Newbury
The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to be careful how labelling will affect imported goods and therefore what the consumer sees in the supermarket. My take is that, if we educate consumers on the labelling for our standards and, if those labels are absent, what the implications might be for imported products, we can better inform them and protect our domestic producers. That will inevitably have to go along- side any improved labelling for our products.
Farmed Animals: Cages and Crates
Debate between Josh Newbury and Charlie Dewhirst(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate; I heard her speak at the Humane World for Animals event, so I know her passion for the subject.
The petitions that we debate in this place always draw a great deal of attention, but there cannot be many that have the same level of awareness and passionate support as this one. Consistent polling shows that three quarters of the British public oppose the use of cages for hens, and two thirds oppose the use of farrowing crates. The petition is therefore clearly in the mainstream of public opinion. However, the reality is that consumers all too often cannot act on their values without the tools to do so, which is why labelling is so valuable to give consumers a choice.
I imagine that hon. Members may be growing used to seeing me in Westminster Hall debates on topics like this. This is the third debate on animal welfare that I and many other Members have attended in the last fortnight, so to curb the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will try my best not to retread old ground. I will speak to the prolonged suffering that cage and crate systems cause, preventing animals from carrying out basic natural behaviours such as dust bathing, rooting, grooming and even turning around. The result is stress, frustration and sometimes injury for the animals.
The animal health and welfare pathway acknowledged those challenges, identifying the need to transition away from so-called enriched cages. Labelling is a crucial method of doing so by ensuring that farmers invest in higher welfare and the changes are visible and rewarded, so we can show the public that we are in line with their values. If we are serious about welfare washing—outsourcing cruelty to other countries—we must empower consumers to choose products that meaningfully reflect their values.
Presently, farmers who move to higher welfare, cage-free systems receive little recognition at the point of sale. Labels such as “free range” vary significantly in their meaning, and in some cases are misleading for consumers. A robust method of production labelling would inform consumers clearly about how an animal was reared—battery cage, enriched cage, free range or organic. It would allow consumers to choose to support farmers who are rearing to higher welfare standards. It would reward farmers who are making costly transitions to higher welfare systems, helping to sustain rural livelihoods while staying competitive.
Every supermarket shelf should carry clear, visible information. Where did that bacon come from? Was that sow crate-free? Did that chicken live in a cage? Right now, consumers might be paying more under the assumption that they are supporting higher British welfare standards, but they cannot see whether those standards involve cages. Transparency is the friend of both the farmer and the shopper, and labelling is the bridge to achieving that.
To be clear, this is not about shaming farmers. Quite the opposite: it is about empowering them. The transition to cage-free systems has been supported by this Government, via grants for laying hen and pullet farmers, and by the major supermarkets that have promised to selling shell eggs from caged hens by the end of this year. Some are going further and are ending the use of processed eggs, too. Free-range eggs now account for 69% of the total egg throughput in the UK which shows, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) rightly said, that we are very far ahead of many other nations on high-welfare farming.
Sadly, however, those measures alone will not shift the dial quickly enough, particularly on meat products, as without a comprehensive labelling system, consumers cannot identify and choose higher welfare products. Without their demand, and the necessary investment from retailers, farmers lack the ability to transition in a way that ensures that their businesses are not damaged by the process.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the issue at length on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Does he agree that we have to be careful to ensure that labelling is clear and does not disadvantage British farmers? It is very likely that we will be unable to label imported products in the same way, so there is a danger that the consumer, who might not understand the complexity, may choose an imported product over a domestic product.
Josh Newbury
I absolutely agree and am always happy to take interventions from hon. Members with greater expertise than mine. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to bear that in mind. We also need to appreciate that it will probably be more difficult to verify the standards of imported products; it is much simpler for people to get around any system that we put in place. We must bear that in mind so that—to go back to the point about welfare washing— consumers do not end up buying products that appear to be of a higher welfare standard, but are not.
Animal welfare need not come at the cost of British farming. With the right transitional support, we can lift the whole sector. It is important that we spell out how that transitional support would work and how quickly it could come about. On farrowing crates, according to the National Pig Association, it could cost around £4,000 per sow to convert an existing building and up to £8,000 per sow to build a new structure. Those figures do not include planning permission, which, as we know, does not come free. We also need to acknowledge that higher welfare animal products carry additional costs for farmers, which have to be passed on to consumers. That is not a reason not to raise standards, because the desire to do so is not limited to higher socioeconomic groups.
A separate issue is the time that such conversions would take. Given the complex planning and permitting requirements, and constraints in the supply chain, it is estimated that it could take at least 15 years to transition all farrowing systems to higher welfare alternatives. The Government are reforming the planning sector to speed that up, but we still need to acknowledge those barriers and work with farmers. We can reward good practice, reduce suffering and ensure that our farms are known not just for productivity, but for principled production. If the science is clear, the public are supportive and the market is adapting and willing to go further if supported, what are we waiting for?
I thank the petitioners. This is our chance to end the cage age, to deliver real transparency and to reward those farmers who are already doing the right thing. By giving consumers the tools to make informed ethical choices, we can build a food system that reflects the compassion of the British public and upholds the standards that we all believe in.