MP is hopeful over food standards protection despite trade deal vote
Now House of Lords must act
A YORKSHIRE Conservative MP says Parliament may still get a definitive say on post-Brexit trade deals including food standards, even though his fellow Tories voted down an amendment which would have allowed MPs to block an agreement.
York Outer MP Julian Sturdy was one of 11 Tory backbenchers to defy the Government on Monday, by backing an amendment to the Trade Bill which would have given Parliament a “yes/no vote” on the negotiating objectives and the final draft agreement.
Concerns were raised that politicians in Westminster would be unable to prevent the Government reneging on commitments to protect the NHS and maintain animal welfare and food standards when an agreement is struck with the US under the current terms of the Trade Bill.
But the Government stressed UK law offers such protections and any changes would have to come before Parliament.
The amendment adding a new clause four to the Trade Bill was rejected by 263 votes to 326, majority 63.
MPs approved the Trade Bill itself at third reading by 335 votes to 243, majority 92, meaning the legislation will undergo further scrutiny in the Lords.
Mr Sturdy, a farmer, put his name on the amendment proposed by Conservative former Minister Jonathan Djanogly.
Mr Sturdy said the issue of Parliament having a say on any trade deals was “one to watch because it has got to go back to the Lords”.
He said: “Everyone realised we were not going to win the day last night but what was important was to lay down a marker.
“With 11 Tory MPs voting for clause four and other MPs backing it, that sends a message to the Lords that this is something they would like to get their teeth into.”
Farming bodies fear the UK is preparing to water down its food safety standards in order to reach a trade deal with the US, something the Government strongly denies.
Boosting agricultural exports is a top US priority for a trade agreement, and Prime Minister Boris Johnson was criticised earlier this year when he appeared to back away from a pledge to maintain bans on chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated
What was important was to lay down a marker. MP Julian Sturdy was one of 11 Tory backbenchers to defy the Government.
beef in hopes of securing a treaty. Mr Sturdy, a member of the Commons select committee scrutinising environmental issues, said any lowering of animal welfare and food standards in a trade deal with the US would have a huge impact in Yorkshire because of its producers’ high standards.
He said: “Parliament having a say on it, Parliament being able to vote on it is something I strongly believe is necessary. That is why Parliament is there, to scrutinise these things.”
Mr Sturdy said the issue could also be addressed with an amendment to the Agriculture Bill, which provides the legislative framework for replacement agricultural support schemes postBrexit. Opening the debate on the Trade Bill, International Trade Minister Greg Hands said the Government was “committed to transparency” regarding scrutiny of international agreements.
He said: “We are strongly committed to transparency, as demonstrated by the steps we have taken to provide comprehensive information to the public and Parliament.”
Thirsk and Malton MP Kevin Hollinrake said public consultations would always be held prior to negotiations over a future trade deal, and that Ministers also publish their negotiating objectives prior to the start of trade talks.
FAR FROM supporting Yorkshire’s worldbeating farmers and food producers, the consequences of a House of Commons vote threaten to do the precise opposite. For, while there was evidence of Brexit fatigue as MPs debated the Trade Bill, it does not excuse the illogical outcome of a crucial vote.
This was the clause that would have set a requirement “for imported agricultural goods to meet animal health” and other standards “which are at least as high as those which apply to UK produced agricultural goods”.
Instead of showing undiluted support for British agriculture, it was defeated by 326 to 263 votes – presumably because whips, including Pudsey’s Stuart Andrew, the deputy chief whip, told the more malleable backbench MPs not to risk a potential trade deal with the United States.
Yet, by treating MPs like ‘lobby fodder’, it assumes that there will be a US trade deal when American politics has never been more visceral and contradicts all those Ministers, like Environment Secretary George Eustice, who have promised to maintain farming and food standards. And, more fundamentally, it risks compromising the future viability of many UK farms – and food producers – if their strict adherence to the highest animal welfare and environmental standards is undermined by a deluge of cheap imports like chlorinated chicken or hormone-reared beef from the US.
As such, The Yorkshire Post implores the House of Lords, as the revising chamber, to instruct the Commons to think again on this crucial clause. Not only will peers be improving legislation, another of their key remits, but they will be showing why the House of Lords matters more than ever as 10 Downing Street becomes even more centralised – some would say dictatorial – under Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings. That is not what ‘taking back control’ was ever intended to mean.