Gove forced to defend lack of post-Brexit protection against chlorinated chicken in agriculture bill

Michael Gove has come under fire for failing to protect the UK from lower quality imports such as chlorinated chicken in his new agriculture bill.

MPs asked why such measures were not included when the “whole raison d’etre” of the plan was to preserve animal welfare and environmental standards.

The environment secretary stated such provisions were not within the scope of the bill, which was meant to deal exclusively with payments to farmers and the fairness of the UK supply chain.

But during a question session on the bill, members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Efra) Committee said any subsidies provided to farmers would be meaningless if they were undercut by products from abroad.

Concerns have been raised in recent months about the prospect of post-Brexit trade deals with nations like the US and Australia, which could see the country flooded with cheap products including hormone-treated beef and even “burnt goat heads”.

Committee member and Labour MP Kerry McCarthy asked if Mr Gove and agriculture minister George Eustice would endorse a change to the bill to ensure UK standards would apply equally to imports.

Mr Eustice responded saying the argument would be better suited to the trade bill, and that the new agriculture bill was more focused on schemes to replace the EU’s common agricultural policy.

“It’s not in the scope of the bill which is intended to deal with future payment and also with fairness in the supply chain here, but the sentiments that you express are ones we absolutely share,” confirmed Mr Gove.

The Labour MP told the ministers this was a real point of concern for the farming community, and “all the subsidies we give to British farmers would be pretty meaningless if they could be undercut by lower quality cheap imports where they cut corners”.

Committee chair and Conservative MP Neil Parish echoed these concerns, citing the recent visit of US agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue.

“He talked really nothing but getting access to our market for their chicken,” said Mr Parish.

The US uses different techniques to avoid contamination and infection in its livestock, washing chicken carcasses with chlorine and reportedly using up to five times as many antibiotics in their animals.

Mr Eustice acknowledged these differences, stating: “The US approach is much more: turn a blind eye to what might happen on the farm and treat it when it gets to the abattoir.

“It’s a different culture and they don’t have a culture of putting animal welfare in a particularly prominent position either.”

Given these concerns, Mr Parish told the ministers “you have got to protect us against imports”.

“I don’t see what harm it would do in the agriculture bill, then at least when a trade deal comes along when we are debating it in the House of Commons we can say in the agriculture bill it refers to maintaining those standards when we import food.

“Why are you so adamant it can’t go there when your whole raison d’etre of British agriculture in the future is to have high welfare and environment standards?” he asked the ministers.

Responding to the hearing, a spokesperson from the National Farmers’ Union said: “British farming operates to some of the highest standards in the world.

“The recent Efra Committee The Future of Food, Farming and the Environment report recommended that the government does not enter into trade agreements that allow food imports that do not meet our environmental, welfare and food safety standards.

“It is vital that British farming’s produce and contribution to the nation is not undermined.”

Ms McCarthy said she planned to table an amendment to the bill to try to get these protections enshrined in law.

The proposals suggested by Mr Gove include payments to farmers for environmental services such as curbing flooding and improving access to the countryside.

They have been heralded as part of the government’s plan to deliver a “green Brexit”, but some members of the Efra Committee said there were fears among farmers that the plans will come at the expense of food production.

Mr Eustice said he hoped to have the agriculture bill finalised before the end of the year or early next year, before the Brexit date in March.