We begin with a Select Committee statement. Mr Alistair Carmichael will speak on the publication of the fifth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 1661, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of it, and I will call Mr Alistair Carmichael to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each. I call Mr Alistair Carmichael, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Thank you, Ms Jardine. It is, as ever, an inestimable pleasure to serve under your stewardship in Westminster Hall. May I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for me to make a statement to mark the publication of our Committee’s fifth report of this Parliament, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”?
The report is the third major output of our long-term inquiry into animal and plant health. As part of our inquiry, we have spent time in discussion with domestic stakeholders in farming and food production and with officials and parliamentarians in Brussels. It is clear from our time in Brussels that the Prime Minister’s reset in May 2025 has created a political environment in which the early conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union is a realistic objective.
Progressing towards an agreement at pace brings with it both opportunities and threats. The main threat we identify is that the process of dynamic alignment could result in us aligning with regulations that weaken the position of our food producers, as it might deny them access to products on which they currently rely. That threat is particularly acute in relation to plant protection products used by our arable farmers. This is a complex area where the needs of our farmers must be understood and protected. I do not doubt that in the negotiation of the agreement the Government will seek to do that. I am less convinced, however, that in practice they will have the depth of knowledge necessary to avoid the law of unintended consequences coming into play. That depth of knowledge exists and is readily accessible for the Government from British farmers and other businesses involved in the manufacture of plant protection products. Securing their fullest engagement is the best way to ensure that any agreement is workable and will not leave our food producers at a disadvantage.
I very much welcome the report. In particular, I support the recommendation on an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision breeding. In my part of the country, we are proud to host the Norwich Research Park, the Quadram Institute and the John Innes Centre, which are at the forefront of scientific innovation. They are not only a British success story, but important for local jobs and the local economy. Does the Chair of the Select Committee believe that the Government recognise the value of precision breeding as a scientific advancement?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I welcome him formally to the Committee and thank him for his contribution to its proceedings. We benefited from our time at the John Innes Centre, and it is not a subject of any controversy to say that the Committee was very impressed with the professionalism of all those who work there and their commitment to improving our commercial advantage in precision breeding and gene editing.
It is fair to say that the position on precision breeding in England is one that farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom look to with a degree of envy, and it would be a great shame if we lost the advantage that England has from being an early adopter. From speaking to people in the Commission, my impression is that they are keen to see the steps the UK has taken as encouragement for their member states to come towards our position, and that dynamic alignment will not necessarily be a one-way process. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point, and any SPS agreement that does not respect and enhance our advantage will miss a most important trick for our farmers.
I welcome the report and I reiterate the thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity. The right. hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report done by the Andersons Centre, on behalf of CropLife UK, which indicates that alignment could wipe out £810 million-worth of farm profits in year one alone and see production of wheat down by 16%, apples down by 7% and potatoes down by 6%, possibly costing 9,000 agricultural jobs. With that in mind, does he agree that it is paramount for the Minister responsible for EU negotiations to come before our Committee, either in public or in private, at the earliest opportunity?
The hon. Gentleman knows my views on this; in fact, I have touched on them already. I think it is absolutely essential. It is to the benefit of everybody that those responsible for the negotiations have the fullest understanding of the views in Parliament, out there in the production sector—CropLife UK is a good example of that—and of farmers, who have day-to-day responsibility for these issues. A good SPS agreement that gets things right should not have too many unintended consequences. While a cliff-edge implementation would apparently result in the loss of £810 million, a lengthy implementation period would allow us the opportunity to smooth out any wrinkles that we might inadvertently have agreed to. We know from the trade and co-operation agreement that rushing can sometimes make things more difficult in the longer term.
The SPS is a really positive development and an opportunity for us. If the suggested timescales do come off, it will be impressively quick, but with such fast timescales come the risks mentioned in the report. Does the Chair agree that it is important to not only maintain our higher welfare standards but ensure that our UK farmers are not undercut by imports with lower welfare standards?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She was on the Committee when we heard from the Swiss representatives in Brussels, and they were successful over a rather longer negotiation period. I give credit to the Prime Minister for having created a political environment in which a negotiated agreement this year is not just possible but expected. I understand all the reasons why the Prime Minister would want to see the earliest possible implementation—there are imperatives coming from the political electoral cycle, shall we say—but at the end of the day it is more important that our farmers get what is necessary to allow them to take advantage of the agreement. If they cannot sell the products into market, we have missed the whole point of having an SPS agreement; it would be an agreement simply for the sake of it. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, in this agreement, as in any other trade deal we have, leaving ourselves open to the import of food produced to lower standards than we expect of our farmers would be absolute madness.
I am grateful to the Chair of the EFRA Committee for laying out the top lines from this excellent report, and I also commend the Committee for its work on the inquiry into animal and plant health. My right hon. Friend spoke about the Cabinet Office Minister not appearing before his Committee, but the Minister did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee in September, as part of our inquiry into the UK-EU reset, although that is of course not the place for detail on SPS arrangements. Any alignment with the EU on SPS policy needs to be phased in. Could my right hon. Friend expand on why the shift needs to be a transition, rather than an immediate removal of friction, given that the National Farmers Union has said it is critical that we avoid a cliff edge?
On any objective analysis, it is very important that we get this right, and we can get it right by doing it slowly and carefully. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—the lobster capital of Europe—referenced the report from CropLife UK. The report seeks to quantify the financial cost of a cliff-edge implementation, and puts it as high as £810 million. CropLife UK is obviously not saying, “Don’t do this,” but simply, “If you do this with no proper implementation period, there will be financial cost attached to it.” At a time when the Government’s central mission is economic growth, and when that growth must be available to every community in the country —rural as well as urban—taking that sort of risk for the political imperative of timing seems an unacceptable way of managing such an important agreement.
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his clear message on veterinary medicines for Northern Ireland, and for his and the Committee’s encouragement to the Minister to ensure that the agreement is in place as soon as possible. We very much welcome alignment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the report highlights that an SPS agreement could significantly reduce regulatory friction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by aligning standards, which could potentially remove physical checks and “Not for EU” labelling requirements. However, did the right hon. Member and his Committee consider the fact that the Government cannot exercise re-entrance to Europe by the back door? How can the Government ensure that seeking a tailor-made UK deal for all is their approach?
If our ultimate destination were re-entry, whether by the back door or front door, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might struggle to find a common position. Let us be clear what we are dealing with. An SPS agreement is tightly drawn, and is about our food producers having frictionless access so that they can get their products to market in our single biggest market. That is why there is a real opportunity here.
To my mind, the veterinary medicines agreement, for example, goes beyond trade; it is a matter of animal welfare. Allowing questions of constitution to get in the way of providing the animal welfare products we need, in any part of the United Kingdom, would be unforgivable.
On the subject of engagement, I observe in passing that, when in Brussels, the Committee benefited from high-level and good-quality engagement from officials in the Commission and Members of the European Parliament, as well as other relevant organisations. By contrast, our engagement with our own Government has been less straightforward. The Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations declined our invitation to appear before the Committee and has offered instead a private briefing for me as Chair. I am afraid that that offer, while appreciated, rather misses the point of how Select Committees work, and especially how the EFRA Committee works. I am not blind to the sensitivities of a live negotiation, but we are a Select Committee of the House of Commons charged with the scrutiny of the Government. For us not to scrutinise fully the Government’s conduct of these negotiations would be a dereliction of our duty, which I am not prepared to countenance.
Let me place on record that the Committee’s work on this most important of areas for our food producers is continuing and that we look to the Government for better engagement than we have had. If the sensitivities of the negotiation mean that Ministers are unwilling to appear in public—that is not an unreasonable position—other means must be found for the Committee to fulfil its duties. At the very least, I would hope to see a briefing of the whole Committee in private.
A central issue in these negotiations is dynamic regulatory alignment. Under such a model, the UK may be required to adjust domestic laws when the EU changes its own, particularly in areas such as animal welfare, pesticide regulation and precision breeding. We heard deep concerns from the agrifood sector that unqualified dynamic alignment risks placing additional burdens on UK farmers, while undercutting them with cheaper imports produced under weaker standards. Our report therefore recommends that the Government seek a Swiss-style carve-out for animal welfare rules, ensuring that the UK is not compelled to follow every regulatory change that could be to the detriment of higher UK standards in this area.
Similarly, the Government should seek an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision-bred products. Some of the UK is ahead of the EU in this area, with farmers in England already having been enabled to grow and market precision-bred seeds, plants, food and animal feed. Without an exemption, we risk losing the benefits of moving first. Mandatory alignment with future EU rules could undermine our progress and innovation and weaken the UK’s leadership in the sector.
On pesticides and maximum residue levels, we heard evidence that EU rules developed post Brexit may not reflect UK agronomic conditions. Imposing them without consideration of our climate, crops and production systems risks unnecessary burdens for growers, which at best may be impractical, but at worst may be impossible. We therefore recommend that any sanitary and phyto- sanitary agreement must guarantee that UK scientific evidence is fully considered in all risk-based decisions affecting our agriculture.
Our inquiry also highlighted that SPS alignment will not succeed without public understanding and trust. Dynamic alignment involves choices. We need a national conversation between Government and the public to set out the realities, opportunities and constraints of a potential SPS deal.
I turn now to Northern Ireland and the provision of veterinary medicines. Although veterinary medicines are not formally within the scope of the SPS agreement, they remain an unresolved and urgent issue under the Windsor framework. The continued uncertainty about the availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland poses real risks to animal health, farm businesses and trade. We therefore recommend that the Government pursue a veterinary medicines agreement with the EU, concurrently with the SPS discussions, and set out clear timelines and priorities for doing so.
For Parliament, these negotiations raise fundamental questions. If future EU regulatory changes may affect UK law, Parliament must have a clear and meaningful role in scrutinising the negotiations and any subsequent rule changes. We have recommended that the Government publish detailed plans for parliamentary scrutiny, including how EU legislation would be assessed before being considered for assimilation into UK law.
A workable SPS agreement will require careful, phased implementation. Border authorities, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, port health teams, laboratories and industry all made clear to us that significant regulatory change requires long lead-in times. Staff training, new systems and revised working practices cannot be introduced overnight. We therefore recommend a minimum 24-month implementation period for any major regulatory changes arising from an SPS agreement.
In this report, we have set out the opportunities of an SPS agreement, and they are significant. A well-designed agreement could ease trade, reduce costs and strengthen ties with our largest trading partner. But the risks are also significant. Poorly managed alignment could burden farmers, erode trust, undermine innovation and weaken the UK’s ability to act on its own scientific evidence.
Our recommendations are practical and proportionate. They are designed to ensure that any SPS agreement supports UK agriculture, strengthens biosecurity and commands public and parliamentary confidence. It is crucial that the Government enter these negotiations with absolute clarity and purpose and a determination to safeguard the interests of the UK’s agrifood sector. Farmers need certainty, fairness and a Government who recognise the weight of their responsibility. The stakes for our farmers, food system and national resilience are simply too high for anything less.