A report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee has warned that a future sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal must avoid disadvantaging UK agriculture and meat businesses.
The EFRA Committee highlighted that an SPS agreement with the European Union (EU) could bring “many benefits” for UK consumers, farmers and producers if it lowers costs by removing the need for border checks and other red tape and makes supply chains more resilient.
The report also highlighted a range of risks, particularly if the UK is required to change domestic regulations to align with EU rules in ways that create additional burdens or “erode competitive advantage”.
The full report, including the list of recommendations, can be accessed here.
Fresh Produce Consortium calls for clarity
Responding to the report, Nigel Jenney, chief executive of the Fresh Produce Consortium (FPC), commented: “I welcome the EFRA Committee’s recognition of the profound complexity and the sheer scale of unanswered questions that FPC has been highlighting for some time.
“What the UK urgently needs is a genuine UK/EU reset that strengthens, not constrains, international trade with both the EU and the Rest of the World (RoW). Instead, we are once again staring down the barrel of unnecessary bureaucracy, higher costs, and deeper trade complexity.
“Let us be absolutely clear: we have secured no UK SPS border controls for EU fresh produce imports, and only a very low level of controls for cut flowers. In that context, the so-called ‘savings’ being promoted by the UK Government simply do not exist if the underlying deal delivers no real additional benefit. Even more concerning is that any move to unnecessarily align with EU SPS controls, which now appears increasingly likely, would actively create trade friction, drive disruption, and push up costs for UK consumers, with no meaningful upside.
“Over the past five years, the UK has developed a risk-based biosecurity regime, including for Rest of the World (RoW) trade, under which most fresh produce is not subject to border controls. Replacing this with EU-style SPS measures would mean around four million tonnes – roughly 50% of our imports – becoming subject to extensive border checks, purely for political convenience, and with inevitable consequences for food inflation.
“This would be a profound step backwards. It is not pragmatic. It is not proportionate. And it is certainly not pro-trade. The fresh produce sector – and UK consumers – deserve far better.
“We need the UK Government to do more than listen; we need clear and unambiguous commitment to ensure international trade and UK consumers are not left picking up the bill indefinitely if effective exclusions are not adopted.”
“A veterinary and medicines deal that would benefit trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is long overdue.”
EFRA Committee chair Alistair Carmichael MP said: “Making it easier to trade with our European neighbours should present a feast of benefits for British businesses, farmers and consumers. But there is a lot on the menu for the Government to consider, and our recommendations aim to help Ministers set the table.
“For starters, we strongly urge the Government to aim for a Swiss-style carve out of dynamic alignment with the EU regarding animal welfare. We must avoid unnecessary burdens and undercutting of farmers from products produced abroad where animals are treated worse than in the UK. This would present a zero-sum game and a threat to our already wary industry.
“The use of pesticides is also a delicate subject. It would be a mistake for dynamic alignment to lead to products that are banned in the EU also being outlawed in the UK despite not having been tested in our climate and production systems. Similarly, we should not let regulatory alignment squander the benefits reaped from our scientific innovations with precision breeding.
“A veterinary and medicines deal that would benefit trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK is long overdue and should be worked towards in tandem with SPS talks.
“We recognise the potential benefits of an SPS agreement but are especially concerned that failures to communicate effectively with the public about the pros and cons of dynamic regulatory alignment on any subject could cause political upset. We need a national conversation on the realities of a future agreement. There is also the unresolved question of how Parliament should scrutinise any regulatory changes that are made in Europe if they then need to be adopted here. This Committee will continue to take the reins on any examination of SPS changes that affect this country.”
