FURY OVER VOTE TO SAVE OUR FOOD

MPs set to be denied their say on protecting British farming standards

MINISTERS were hit with a furious backlash last night after being accused of using an obscure rule to deny MPs a vote on protecting British farming standards.

The Commons had today been due to vote on two amendments to the Agricultural Bill designed to strengthen protections against sub-standard foods flooding into the UK postBrexit. But, in a blow to campaigners, a vote on one of them looks set to be pulled, while the other is unlikely to pass.

Downing Street, which opposes the amendments, is facing a rebellion from Tory MPs in rural constituencies amid intense lobbying from farming groups and campaigning celebrities but not enough are expected to rebel to inflict defeat on the Government.

Concerned groups such as the National Farmers’ Union fear foods such as American chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef could flood in under future trade deals without better protections.

One of the Bill’s amendments would hand powers to a new watchdog to scrutinise postBrexit trade deals and warn MPs if standards risk being watered down. But ministers were last night accused of dodging a vote on it by arguing that the proposed new Trade and Agriculture Commission would create extra costs. They will argue this goes beyond the powers of the House of Lords, which tabled the amendment, preventing it from being called by the Commons Speaker.

Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who put forward the amendment, told the Mail that denying MPs a vote on it would show a ‘complete disregard for public opinion on this issue’.

He said: ‘It is odd that this particular amendment has been singled out and rejected on the grounds of cost because the cost is negligible, it’s peanuts, it’s a few people that would be running this new Commission.

‘It does beg the question of how serious the Government is about protecting our standards of production here in the United Kingdom.

‘The Government could just accept the amendment and we could all move on. It’s entirely in their power to do that.’

Ministers were also attacked by Neil Parish, Tory chairman of the Commons environment committee. He said: ‘The Commons is wrongly being denied a say on a technicality. The Government should allow a vote. These are important matters for the future of food and farming.’

Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union, said: ‘We are expecting the Lord Curry amendment not to be moved on Monday, which is deeply disappointing. We believe that this amendment provides a sensible compromise that allows the Government to pursue its trade policy while giving Parliament a greater say on safeguarding our standards.’

Under the Lord Curry amendment, the current temporary Trade and Agriculture Commission, due to be disbanded in the New Year, would be retained for four years and be made truly independent. Its role would be to advise MPs about the implications for farming and food standards of any post-Brexit trade deals.

Decisions on whether to approve trade accords would still rest with MPs. But supporters say that, were the new watchdog to be given real teeth, it could help protect standards to the same extent as an outright legal guarantee. A second amendment tabled to the Bill, by Lord Grantchester, would impose such a strict legal restriction.

It stipulates future food products imported must meet or exceed UK domestic standards.

A vote on this amendment is still expected to go ahead, but is thought less likely to pass.

Ministers have argued that the Agriculture Bill is the wrong vehicle for setting a legal bar on standards. They are adamant that Britain will not allow in controversial farm products such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef as part of any trade deal.

They say importing such products is illegal and will remain so and urge people to trust the Tory manifesto commitment to protect food standards.

But critics say Downing Street simply does not want its hands tied going into post-Brexit trade talks with countries around the world.

A Government spokesman insisted Downing Street has ‘been clear it will not sign a trade deal that will compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards’.

Hormone-fed beef could flood in