THE UK’S trade deal with Australia sets a “damaging precedent” for the future, Scotland and Northern Ireland’s agriculture ministers have warned.
Mairi Gougeon MSP and Edwin Poots MLA have written a joint letter to the UK Government’s international trade secretary demanding assurances that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will not have a detrimental effect on domestic farmers.
Despite assurance from Liz Truss that the farming sector would be “protected” by caps on imports of beef and lamb from Australia for 15 years, the levels that will be allowed in to the UK tariff-free remain much higher than what is currently imported.
This has left farmers fearing for their livelihoods if supermarkets begin to stock low-priced Australian meat imports in favour of home-grown British produce.
There have also been concerns about animal welfare, with Australian standards varying from British ones in several areas, including the length of time animals spend without being given water to drink among other issues.
In their letter to Trade Secretary Ms Truss, Scottish Rural Affairs secretary Ms Gougeon and her NI counterpart Mr Poots said the 15 year cap “will provide no comfort for our farming communities and would set a very damaging precedent for future FTAs yet to be agreed.”
They also say that animal welfare and food standards are devolved issues, and therefore should not be imposed on devolved countries without cooperation.
They wrote: “ We have previously stressed to you, and remain extremely concerned following the recent announcement, that the UK Government is signing up to a deal that would lead to a sustained increase in imports of Australian agri-food and produced to lesser standards in relation to animal welfare and future environmental commitments.
“As you know, agriculture and food standards are devolved responsibilities. We have been clear that where there is an increase in imports of Australian agri-food, this must be managed by tariff rate quotas that are not eroded over time.
“This is to ensure that domestic producers are protected and not disproportionally impacted.”
The two ministers also expressed their scepticism about the levels of imports predicted to come to the UK when the FTA begins, saying they are “not reassured about claims that Australia will not be exporting significant amounts of beef to the UK or is seeking to replace imports from other countries.”
They added: “It would be very surprising that Australia would have been so insistent on achieving a rapid and very sizeable increase in market access with the intention of making little use of it.”
They have also asked for a full impact assessment made by the UK Government to be shared with them, arguing that the details provided so far by Westminster in its Agreement in Principle are scant, and say future discussions on the deal must include input from their governments too.
The UK Government dismissed the suggestion that the deal would set a damaging precedent, with a spokeswoman saying it would “pave the way” for agreements elsewhere.
She said: “The Government has always been clear that any deal would include protections for sensitive UK agriculture.
“Trade deals like the one agreed in principle with Australia will pave the way for us to access regional trading blocs like CPTPP and we will continue to work with the farming industry, as well as the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, to help our farmers take advantage of these dynamic markets.
"UK farmers have a strong reputation for their high quality, high welfare produce. We put British farming at the heart of our trade policy and we have some of the most robust and transparent scrutiny arrangements in the world."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel