Agricultural Sector: Import Standards

Sam Carling Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector.

I am delighted to have secured today’s debate. I am very grateful to all colleagues who signed my application, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time. I am happy to take interventions during my speech.

This debate is about the imbalance between our high domestic farming standards, which rightly prioritise animal welfare and the environment, and our imports, which often fall short. The Government’s animal welfare strategy, published just before Christmas, shows our ambition to protect all animals from needless cruelty and suffering. It is the biggest and most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation. It includes measures to phase out the use of cages in farming, move away from using carbon dioxide to gas pigs, and introduce standards for the humane killing of fish. That is real progress and reflects overwhelming public support for safeguarding animal welfare, but when we improve domestic animal welfare standards, we have to be careful that we are not just exporting cruelty overseas.

British and Northern Irish farmers want animals to be treated well and to have good lives, but UK farmers are undermined by low-welfare imports. Many countries that we import animal products from do not share our standards, so those products are cheaper to produce and sell. Our farmers find themselves in an impossible situation, often unable to compete. Sow stalls, for example, are banned in the UK, but 95% of pork imports come from countries where they remain legal. British shoppers buying bacon have no way of knowing whether the pig that produced it spent its pregnancy in a cage so narrow that it could not turn around. It is the same for hens. Battery cages are already banned here. It is brilliant that we are committed to phasing out cages altogether—the Government should be congratulated on that—but long term, as a next step, we need to think about imports, too. The animal welfare strategy states that we will

“protect our most sensitive sectors and uphold animal welfare standards where we consider overseas produce has an unfair advantage.”

The Government recognise the issue. Now is the time to put that intention into practice.

Brexit has resulted in a massive increase in non-EU imports over the last few years. Although most EU imports are from countries with similar standards to the UK, that is often not the case for imports from non-EU countries. Ninety-five per cent of countries with access to our markets have lower welfare standards than we do. In just four years, from 2020 through to 2024, non-EU beef imports increased by 31%, poultry by 60%, pork by 81% and eggs by a staggering 228%. New trade deals for the UK are welcome, but we need them to uphold our high standards on both animal welfare and pesticides on crops. The price of a good deal cannot be access to the UK food market on more favourable terms than those available to our domestic farmers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. Does he not agree that the recent EU-Mercosur deal opens the EU market to increased imports of agricultural products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol under tariff-rate quotas? That may well mean sacrificing quality for cash, and may have an unwanted knock-on effect for our farmers. The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to save and look after our farmers, who are already under immense pressure. On that deal, the UK Government must make representations to the EU regarding food safety.

[Sam Carling]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point well. I will touch on EU regulations later.

Our Labour Government have a stellar record on this issue so far. In negotiations with India, we refused to lower protections on goods such as pork, chicken and eggs. In talks with Korea, we have secured new commitments on animal welfare, stronger than any it has signed up to in any previous trade agreement. The next step is to equalise all our import standards, rather than just the standards for new agreements. We cannot go back to full alignment with the EU, either. The EU still allows sow stalls, foie gras and fur farming, all of which fall short of our standards. Switzerland successfully negotiated an animal welfare carve-out in its sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are seeking similar exemptions for animal welfare in the UK-EU negotiations. That would ensure we retained the ability to restrict imports that do not meet British welfare standards.

Let me address any arguments about the impact on food prices that changes could have. Over the past few years, food inflation has hit households across the country, and we all want prices to be more affordable, but I think we can all agree that that should not come at the expense of high standards. In the long run, undercutting our farmers will lessen our food security, leaving us more dependent on less reliable markets overseas, and as the Government have repeatedly said, food security is national security. That means that we must defend our farmers from a flood of low-quality imports.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions food imports and illegal imports. Next month will be the 25th anniversary of the devastating foot and mouth outbreak. Nowhere knows better than my Carlisle and north Cumbria constituency just what happens when foot and mouth takes hold. Does my hon. Friend agree that illegal meat imports heighten the risk of animal diseases such as foot and mouth, and that we need a co-ordinated strategy that involves the Government, local authorities and local port authorities to ensure that we counter such biosecurity risks?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sam Carling]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we can unify our import standards with our domestic standards, that problem disappears in many ways? The standards will be the same and therefore we will not have labelling that might undermine our farmers.

[Josh Newbury]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I also point out that there will inevitably be some producers who want to produce to higher standards than the minimum, particularly in this country. They should be fairly recognised and rewarded for that, so there will always be the need for a clear and transparent labelling system. Getting that right will be tricky, but it is important that farmers who are producing to higher standards get fair recompense for that.

I hope the Minister can update the House on where work on labelling has got to, so that consumers can make informed choices for themselves and their families. Ultimately, this issue is about more than import and export figures on a screen; it is about fairness for our farmers, transparency for consumers, and the sustainability of our whole food system. As this House debates the impact of import standards, I urge the Government to continue their firm commitment to core standards and to ensure that free trade agreements work for farmers, for consumers and for British values alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling]

I am glad to have a couple of minutes to wind up after what has been an incredibly valuable debate that has covered a whole range of topics. I start, of course, with the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who, I think, agrees with me—there were various bits of discussion there. I referred exclusively to sow stalls in my speech; he importantly raised the issue of farrowing crates, which also remain an issue in the UK. He spoke of wanting to ensure that our farmers are not undermined, and that is the whole point of this, right? It is about ensuring that we expect at least the same standards of imports coming from overseas so that our farmers are not undercut in that way. So, yes—we agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made some excellent points around the enforcement of standards and honest labelling. All Members present will know just how many emails we get from constituents on the practice of farm washing, where products that have been imported from overseas mistakenly—and, in many cases, misleadingly —try to imply that they meet British standards when they do not, with big Union Jack flags and everything, as my hon. Friend said. We need to get on top of that.

The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about how we need to ensure that more of the public sector prioritises buying British, which I think is really important and something the Government have commented on. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) referred to Baroness Batters, who makes explicit and positive reference to this issue in her profitability review. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) reinforced some of the points I made on the undercutting of farmers and spoke of how much that impacts his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) also spoke about the importance of buying British and the critical link to the hospitality industry, including the various pubs in his constituency, the names of which he treated us to.

The comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), on the Australian trade deal were particularly useful. They also relate to what was said by the shadow Minister who spent some time talking about the Conservatives’ record. There was some good stuff in there. I will just read him this quote from Michael Gove, a former DEFRA Secretary, speaking at Conservative party conference about the previous Government:

“we negotiated poorly with Australia, and New Zealand, but particularly with Australia in defence of our farmers. In the anxiety to secure trade deals, we did not think about the long term.”

I would just encourage Opposition Members to reflect a bit on that.

I had a comment to make if I got an intervention from a Reform Member, but none have turned up, so that did not happen. If they had tried to attack us on this, I would have mentioned that the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), went to America recently to call for economic sanctions against the UK—far from lowering tariffs for British beef exporters as we have done in our landmark economic deal with the US.

I am grateful to the Minister for speaking about the need to ensure that our farmers can export too—that is a really important part of this. She is right that there is a balance to be struck. I thank her for detailing some more of the Government’s examples of success in this area. I did not mention Ukraine specifically with regard to eggs, as I am very conscious of the issues she raises, but I am grateful to her for referring to the positive measures in terms of making some progress over there.

To reiterate, this Government have been clear that worsening our animal welfare standards and allowing imports of low-welfare goods is a red line for us. We are not going to do it, and that is positive. However, that raises a question: why do we not legislate to make sure of that? I trust this Government, but I cannot say I trust future Governments, and I do not trust the trade deals that sadly are already in place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector.