Gordon MP warns of Australia & NZ Trade Bill consequences
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
Gordon MP and SNP spokesperson for International Trade Richard Thomson has warned of the consequences for Scottish agriculture and food and drink during a debate in the House of Commons on the trade deals the UK has negotiated with Australia and New Zealand.
Mr Thomson warned that the risk of “undercutting standards” through the deal meant that meat imported from Australia and New Zealand is likely to end up costing less than home produced meat sitting next to it on the supermarket shelves.
NFU Scotland have previously given evidence to a House of Lords Committee where it described the safeguards of the deal as “very short-term” and not in line with those promised to the sector prior to the agreement made by the UK government, adding: “After 15 years, there is no recourse at all, and that could impact significantly on the farming sector in Scotland”.
Speaking during the debate in the House of Commons, Richard Thomson MP said: “These deals are being rushed through at an horrendous time for UK farmers.
"Farmers are already battling with skyrocketing fertiliser prices, animal feed prices jumping by on average 30 per cent, the avian flu outbreak, the Brexit labour shortages, and the rising diesel costs, to name but a few of the issues at present.
"Therefore, we would think that at this point, rather than rushing on at breakneck speed, there would be opportunity to take the time to get this right - to make sure it is carefully calibrated and is in the interests of farmers and the food and drink industry, and indeed all industries.
“It is quite clear that the objective was to get chalk on the board rather than to get any trade deal in place that might actually improve on or even equal or replicate that which was there.
"The thing is, the Government did not need to travel far to get the feedback that this was not a good deal.
"Scottish sheep and beef farmers could have told them that it was not a good deal; indeed, they tried to do so from the outset.
"They knew fine well that these deals would undercut UK farmers while delivering next to no benefits for the agrifood sector at large.
"It was clearly far more important for the then Prime Minister to be seen to be getting Brexit done and forging on with deals—whether they were any good or not—than to secure positive outcomes for consumers and producers in this country.
“It is telling that the Australian and New Zealand Governments certainly think that this is a good trade deal, and that there are so few individuals outside the ranks of the parliamentary Conservative Party who are prepared to say the same from the UK side.
"I think there is a fundamental reason for that.
"It is quite clear that the Australian and New Zealand Governments were very focused on securing beneficial outcomes for their economies, whereas the UK Government seemed to be focused primarily on getting a deal as quickly as possible, no matter what that cost.”
