Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
ensure that all imported beef has been produced using the same
high welfare and environmental standards as beef produced in the
United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the
register. We remain firmly committed to upholding our
world-leading animal welfare standards. Welfare standards are
considered in all our trade negotiations, and each new agreement
will continue to be subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny. It
has always been the case that some products produced to different
animal welfare standards can be imported into the UK as long as
they comply with our import requirements. Those import
requirements include the ban on meat treated with growth-
promoting hormones.
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply but how does this commitment
on not lowering standards square with, for example, the recent
deal to import Mexican beef, which we know has a higher carbon
footprint than the UK’s and is contributing to tropical
deforestation, or the deal with Australia, where they use hormone
growth promoters that would be illegal to use in the UK? Can the
Minister understand why struggling beef farmers issue a hollow
laugh when they hear these promises to protect standards, which
are simply ignored when our Trade Ministers are desperate to
thrash out a deal?
(Con)
As I say, they will not be allowed to import beef that has been
reared with growth-promoting hormones in it. That is absolutely
clear. It is our policy, and it will remain so.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to ask his fellow
Minister when I can expect an answer to the letter I wrote to him
in my capacity as chairman of the Climate Change Committee, in
which I pointed out that the importation of Mexican beef, with
its high carbon footprint, would be in contravention of the
commitment of the Government both internationally and in the
Budget?
(Con)
I will follow up my noble friend’s request. I am mystified by
some science that gets thrown at me occasionally in this place
which suggests that beef reared 12,000 miles away, transported in
refrigerated trucks and ships and then distributed to retailers
here can have a lower carbon footprint than beef or lamb produced
on grass fields here and going just a few miles to a retailer.
When I hear that, one word comes into my head. It is an
unparliamentary one and begins with B.
(CB)
My Lords, as the Minister outlined, the Conservative Party
pledged:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our
high environmental protection, animal welfare … standards”.
But the Australians said of Liz Truss’s trade deal that tariff
elimination on such a scale through a free trade agreement was
almost unprecedented, and it is not clear what on earth the UK
negotiators extracted in reciprocal concessions. The Australians’
welfare standards are lower. They have battery cages for laying
hens, still legal, as are sow pens, as is the technique of
mulesing on lambs, which I will not go into because it is too
distressing. These are not permitted here. Although this deal may
not amount to much—Australia is very far away—it is a really
dangerous precedent, so can the Government assure the House that
we will not be signing any more deals that undercut our welfare
standards?
(Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness, who knows a lot about these
matters, that animal welfare and environmental standards will be
absolutely at the forefront of all future trade negotiations. I
just say that these deals balance open and free trade with
protections for the agricultural industry. Australia and New
Zealand will remove customs duties on 100% of tariff lines for
originating products in line with agreed treatments that will be
set out in respective tariff schedules on the day the agreements
enter into force. There are huge opportunities, particularly for
the dairy sector. Imports of dairy products into Australia and
New Zealand have increased by around 30%, and I hope our farmers
will be able to benefit from that.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that all beef
sold here has to meet the same standards, whether it is imported
or domestic? Will he further confirm that no country has ever
tried to export its production standards, and that if we were to
insist that every bit of imported beef met our production
standards—as some in this House seem to want—that would rule out
a trade deal with the EU, which does not always match our
standards, let alone with the rest of the world?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that there are some different
standards in the EU, and we have worked as members of the EU and
will continue to work with the EU and other countries through the
World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Trade
Organization to create greater and higher standards of animal
welfare that more reflect what we have here so that there is a
much more even playing field in trade across the world.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, the Government appear very keen to do trade deals with
Canada and Mexico, against the advice of the Climate Change
Committee, which felt that such deals would compromise UK carbon
targets, allowing imported meat with a higher carbon footprint
than our own. Why are the Government not prepared to take
measures to achieve the UK’s carbon targets? Perhaps they feel
they are unimportant.
(Con)
I can assure the noble Baroness that we do not. The Climate
Change Committee has gone through each department. I am
responsible in Defra for making sure that we satisfy the Climate
Change Committee’s demands, which are extremely challenging and
testing. We have a commitment to get to net zero by 2050. British
farming, under the leadership of the NFU, has committed to
getting to net zero by 2040, and I can tell her that, as a
farmer, that is an extremely challenging thing to do, but we as a
Government and the leadership of farming are working together to
help farmers try to achieve that. It is a vital priority that we
decarbonise, and we understand that there is prosperity in doing
so.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Rare Breeds
Survival Trust. Earlier this month, it was reported that a
British supermarket had removed from sale pre-sliced beef marked
as British when in fact it came from overseas. Concerns have also
been raised about imported meat being labelled as British because
it was processed, rather than farmed, in this country, and
packaging for New Zealand lamb is giving undue prominence to the
union jack element of its country’s flag. What steps are Defra
taking to review import procedures and food labelling
requirements to ensure that consumers are not misled and that our
brilliant domestic producers are not put at a disadvantage?
(Con)
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. This is a really
important issue. When we as consumers go into a supermarket, to
an extent, we park our environmental and social conscience with
that brand because we trust it and want it to be doing the right
thing. So if it says that a meat product is UK-produced and it
has a union jack on it, we expect it to be so; we expect it to
have been produced with high welfare standards and the highest
environmental standards possible. If that is not the case, we as
a department, as a Government and in this House should raise this
seriously, both as consumers and as the Government. We meet
retailers on a very regular basis and raise these issues often; I
would be happy to give the noble Baroness more detail
outside.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. In talking
about imports from the European Union, the Minister did not say
that there is a principle of equivalence. Although the standards
outside this country may not be exactly the same, there is a
generality of equivalence between the various standards in
various member states. Does it not follow from that that the
right way to approach the problem we are discussing is to have
transparent, binding farm assurance schemes in the markets where
our trading partners produce animals so that there is
transparency both in terms of getting through the tariff barrier
and other restrictions as well as for the consumer to know what
they are buying?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. That is of great assistance
to the Government and regulators, as well as to retailers which
want to make a virtue of the kinds of products they put on sale.
It is also of great help to the consumer for them to make the
right choices about the products that they wish to buy.
(Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time, I feel sorry for the Minister
having to come to the House because I am convinced that,
privately, his department must have approached our Trade
Ministers saying that this is a bad deal. It is always possible
for Defra Ministers to alienate some of their clientele but,
today, they alienate farmers, environmentalists, animal welfare
people and a big chunk of consumers, all at the same time, for
the sake of paltry deals that will have a minimal effect on our
standard of living. It seems like a humiliation to me. I hope
that, if other deals come up, Defra will be stronger in making
its views known.
(Con)
I am always grateful for the noble Lord’s sympathy, but it is
unnecessary in these circumstances. We work closely across
government; there has been a slightly changed landscape in
government, with big new departments appearing. What is really
important is that current trade deals, and future ones as they
come in, have proper parliamentary scrutiny—there is a process
for that—and reflect the high environmental and animal welfare
standards that we have achieved in this country, which we want to
see continue.
