PARLIAMENTARY PING pong over food standards and trade deals continued as the House of Lords backed two amendments to the Agriculture Bill on Tuesday night (October 20).

The government was defeated by 282 votes to 244 on an amendment by Labour peer Lord Grantchester, which seeks to ensure food standards for imported foods are the same, or higher, than UK standards.

Peers also backed Lord Curry's amendment which would look to strengthen the scrutiny powers of the new Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC), by 278 votes to 200.

 

Both amendments will be debated once again in the House of Commons, which some Lords criticised as the wrong place for discussion, suggesting that these would be better suited to the Trade Bill.

However, there was clear irritation from peers such as the Earl of Caithness who said the government had been 'unnecessarily obstructive and intransigent' on the Agriculture Bill. “They are alienating a lot of farmers and a lot of those who live in the country who see the government as being unnecessarily reluctant to accept any improvements to the bill.”

Labour's shadow environment minister Lord Grantchester warned that labelling on food imports is not an ‘adequate way out’ for the government: “The biggest threat is to consumers who will have to negotiate a minefield of food to differing standards especially from potential US imports from the government’s imperative to align with America through a trade deal.

“In the US there are 26,500 hospitalisations and 420 deaths a year from salmonella,” he continued. “Compare that to the EU which is home to 120 million more people where there are presently 1766 hospitalisations and 10 deaths.” He added that future cheap, sub-standard imports would present a further challenge to the NHS and called on the government to ‘get standards done’.

But Conservative peer Lord Lansley disagreed that import standards should be enshrined in law: “If we enter into an agreement with the EU, then the EU must accept our standards. The whole point of what people voted for (Brexit) was that we would not be bound by EU standards and I have heard ministers say that they want to have higher standards.

“No international trade agreement itself changes UK domestic legislation,” he continued. “For that to happen it requires these two houses to make those decisions separately. So directly we can’t be put in a position where imports come into this country on standards which would not be accepted in our domestic legislation. In that respect we should look at this as something about trade and consider it further in the trade bill.”

Lord Cormack concurred and ahead of the vote, urged his peers to ‘think carefully before indulging in another round of ping pong.’

Independent crossbencher Lord Curry of Kirkharle remained ‘unconvinced that there is enough rigour in the system’ to scrutinise trade deals, as he brought forward his new amendment to strengthen the powers of the TAC: "The fear of cheap imported food undermining our standards of production as a result of trade deals that have not been adequately scrutinised has united all key stakeholders from the entire farming community.

“To bolt on additional responsibilities to a number of agencies in a piecemeal fashion is no replacement for a dedicated, independent body providing government with in depth knowledge of the entire sector.”