158.The EU’s powers to legislate in respect of agriculture are set out in Articles 38 to 44 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). These provide that the EU must implement a common agricultural policy that extends the Single Market to agriculture and trade in agricultural products. In designing an agricultural policy, the EU must also take into account the over-arching principles expressed in the Treaties regarding the protection of the environment and animal welfare.
The objectivesof the CAP are:
(a)to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;
(b)thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;
(c)to stabilise markets;
(d)to assure the availability of supplies;
(e)to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.
159.Four basic Regulations underpin the CAP: rural development (Regulation 1305/2013), financing, management and monitoring (Regulation 1306/2013), direct payments (Regulation 1307/2013) and the single Common Market Organisation (sCMO) (Regulation 1308/2013). Taken together, the CAP, in its current form, provides an EU framework of regulation for direct payment support to farmers, market support measures and rural development programmes.
160.As we noted above, the EU “farm-to-table” measures also regulate food safety and animal and plant health, creating a comprehensive body of legislation for food products.
161.There is long-standing frustration over the rigidity of the CAP. Among those farmers who voted to leave the EU, Wesley Aston, Chief Executive of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, told us that one of the “main reasons” was “The amount of regulation that tied them up and prevented them from farming and getting on with the business they enjoy”. He gave an example: “There are certain dates where you are allowed to do things on one side of the date and not allowed to do on the other, and that just does not happen. Look at the weather we have had this winter time compared with what we had previously. Farming by calendar dates is a real problem in setting the EU rules.” Similarly, Tom Lancaster, Agricultural Policy Officer at the RSPB, said that “there are elements … that are very bureaucratic. A lot of that though flows from European requirements, such as the record keeping, the single annual start date, various other points of detail.” NFU Cymru agreed: “Brexit offers considerable opportunity to reduce the regulatory burden under which our farmers currently operate.”
162.From a food and drinks perspective, Ian Wright, Director General of the FDF, cited general frustration with the amount of time that it takes to develop regulations within the EU: “Because of the process of having to go through the Commission, the Parliament, and so on, there is the danger that some developments which are technically possible take longer because you have to go through a process of approval by 28 Member States.”
163.The Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) concluded that “exiting the CAP gives the UK opportunity to structure domestic policy so that it is in line with both UK agriculture and UK conditions … An appropriate level of flexibility can be written into a domestic policy much more easily than on an EU wide basis.”
164.The Minister, George Eustice MP, agreed, arguing that a “prescriptive, centralised, pan-European policy is never going to work well”, and that “the golden opportunity with Brexit is the chance to do policy better”.
165.Guy Smith, Vice President of the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), told us that “there are many aspects of EU regulation we would like to see reformed … that we find are crude and clunky and do not address the problems they are trying to address”. The NFU subsequently gave examples of such “burdensome” EU regulations, including the Water Framework Directive (on the grounds that it is complex and can restrict growth), the Nitrates Directive (as overly prescriptive and inflexible, imposing high costs to agriculture), and neonicotinoid restrictions (as not based on sound scientific evidence). The FUW sought a review of “those areas which are most costly and disproportionate and frequently result in punitive sanctions for farmers”, such as “Nitrate Vulnerable Zones; Environmental Impact Assessment requirements; animal movement recording and reporting; and fallen stock burial—all of which could be improved and made more proportionate without compromising overarching objectives”.
166.As an example, witnesses expressed an interest in amending the three-crop rule. Tim Breitmeyer, Deputy President of the CLA, told us that this rule “was brought in … to get rid of the monocropping of crops in Europe, in particular. It does not fit our farming model at all well here.” Wyn Grant, Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of Warwick, agreed, calling it a “blunt instrument … One would want to see regulations like that disappear as soon as they possibly could, or at least be substantially modified.” In a speech to the Oxford Farming Conference on 4 January 2017, Secretary of State, Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP, similarly identified the “ridiculous, bureaucratic three-crop rule” as a candidate for “scrapping the rules that hold us back”.
167.Another recurring theme was for the UK to move to a more risk-based approach to plant protection product (PPP) regulation. The European Union takes a ‘precautionary approach’ to regulating chemicals, which emphasises the hazard of a given substance to human and animal health. Mr Breitmeyer believed that “the principle of risk, backed up by good science, is just as good a principle to adhere to”. The Crop Protection Association agreed: “The use of hazard criteria for regulation of pesticides should not be retained by the UK following exit from the EU as it limits the range of pesticides available to growers and farmers without any concomitant improvement in protection of either human health or the environment.” Nabim also favoured “the adoption of a greater degree of pragmatism around such issues as the very low level presence of some contaminants where an independent assessment shows little or no risk”. This view was supported by a number of other witnesses.
168.The UK Pesticides Campaign countered that “The only real solution to eliminate all adverse health and environmental impacts of pesticides is to take a preventative approach and avoid exposure altogether”, while Tom MacMillan, Director of Innovation at the Soil Association, pointed out that “On something like endocrine disruptors, where effectively there is no safe threshold that can be defined, a hazard-based approach is the same as a risk-based approach”. Fergus Ewing MSP, of the Scottish Government, believed that “Adopting the EU’s regulatory regime would minimise the risk of reducing pesticide availability in Scotland unnecessarily, and the risk of barriers to trade in foodstuffs produced using pesticides”.
169.One area in which witnesses did not wish to see regulatory changes was in relation to animal welfare. As we noted in Chapter 3, farm animal welfare may be a key element of post-Brexit trade agreements. We have explored this issue in more detail in a short inquiry into Brexit and farm animal welfare, which we expect to resume early in the new Parliament.
170.Although there may be significant opportunities to review the legislative framework underpinning agriculture in the UK, we heard that the scope for deregulation may be limited. In the words of George Dunn, Chief Executive of the TFA: “We cannot rush to a bonfire of the regulations on day one.” The Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) also told us that, as a point of principle, they would “question whether anyone involved in the agricultural sector is looking for the UK Government to diminish or weaken the regulatory framework”. The CVO reminded us that “We will still be operating globally, so we will always have reference back to the international standard”, and Dr Viviane Gravey, Dr Brian Jack and Dr Lee McGowan from Queen’s University Belfast noted that “what farmers want will have to be balanced out with consumer demands and with the influence of the UK environmental movement”.
171.There is also a risk that regulatory simplification could create non-tariff barriers to trade, as discussed in Chapter 3. Mr Smith hoped that “we could do a deal with the European Union whereby we are allowed to take back some of the regulation of our industry and continue to trade with them freely, but that is a big political ask”. He conceded that in advocating a free trade agreement with the EU, he was “walking into a lot of EU Regulation which I said I wanted to move away from”, but hoped that it would be possible “to have a nuanced British-type policy and continued access”.
172.Again, pesticides illustrate this difficulty. Alan Swinbank, Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Reading, told us: “Any product that goes into an overseas market has to meet the product specification of that market. If that relates to pesticide residues or some other such matter which relates to the product as such, then farmers and processors would still have to abide by those regulations.”
173.Moreover, agreed international standards, for example those set by Codex, and WTO agreements, such as the SPS and TBT agreements (see Box 3), establish regulation that applies to trade agreements internationally. These will apply to trade in agri-food with any third country, and will thus constrain the UK’s regulatory freedom to some extent. If WTO member states want to adopt higher standards than those agreed internationally, those standards must comply with the rules of the SPS and TBT Agreements. In the case that the EU has implemented higher standards, the UK could choose to operate a two-tier set of regulations: one for products destined for the EU and one for products destined elsewhere. We explored this possibility in our report Brexit: trade in goods, where we noted that “a ‘two-tier’ approach to regulation of the food and beverages sector post-Brexit appears undesirable and unlikely”. This was due to the potential detrimental effect a two-tier system could have for the reputation of British food and agricultural products, and the difficulty associated with operating a two-tier regulatory system in, say, a meat plant, where different parts of the animal may be destined for different markets. We concluded: “Operating to two separate regulatory standards—for the domestic and EU markets—would be costly for UK businesses.”
174.Brexit presents a new and important opportunity to replace elements of EU agricultural regulation that are bureaucratic, ineffective or ill-tailored to farming conditions in the UK, for example the three-crop rule and farming by calendar dates.
176.Significant divergence between the regulatory frameworks in the UK and the EU, by creating non-tariff barriers, could make it more difficult to continue to trade agri-food products after Brexit. As we noted in our report Brexit: trade in goods, a FTA with the EU is likely to require a legal commitment by the UK to maintain a high level of harmonisation or mutual recognition of regulations and standards with the EU. The scope for deregulation, while not negligible, may therefore be limited.
177.Although a single UK position on agriculture is presented in negotiations at the EU level, agricultural policy within the UK is devolved: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for the implementation of CAP legislation in their respective territories. The CAP allows some flexibility in implementation, which has led to a number of differences in the current implementation arrangements within the UK.
178.The wider issue of the impact of Brexit upon the devolution settlements is being addressed in the European Union Committee’s inquiry on Brexit: devolution. In the following paragraphs we limit ourselves to addressing these issues in the context of agriculture.
179.The key challenge will be to maintain the necessary degree of consistency across the UK while respecting diverse regional and local circumstances. Dr Gravey et al told us:
“A first critical decision will be constitutional: how will the UK share its competence regarding agriculture policy: what will be done by the devolved administrations, what will be done centrally and how will these be coordinated (e.g. to avoid misfits between UK trade and agricultural policy in the devolved administration).”
According to Dr Alan Greer, Associate Professor in Politics and Public Policy at UWE Bristol, farmers’ unions support “some sort of common UK-wide policy that minimises unfair competition and protects free trade and level playing fields, while allowing some room for flexibility and differentiation to permit the devolved administrations to make decisions that are appropriate for their conditions and circumstances”.
180.NFU Scotland, while acknowledging that “significantly divergent agricultural policies across the UK” would be undesirable, and could create distortion, considered that “the Scottish Government having the power to apply the policy to best fit the needs of the Scottish farmers and crofters it serves is sensible and proper.” They also questioned “how pesticides, chemicals, plant protection and animal welfare in particular will be regulated on a pan-UK basis”.
181.Rt Hon Carwyn Jones AM, the First Minister of Wales, told us: “It is vital devolution is fully respected and the ability devolved administrations have to tailor policy in devolved areas to our very different contexts is not restricted.” He continued:
“We have acknowledged the need for UK Frameworks in some areas to replace those currently set by the EU, however, these should be collectively developed and agreed, based on common consent by all four Governments within the UK, and not imposed … there is a clear need for new governance arrangements to support how the UK will collectively deliver on international agreements or obligations.”
182.We heard from DAERA, writing in March 2017, that “in the current absence of a Northern Ireland Assembly, Brexit remains a priority. Work continues to ensure we replace the Common Agricultural Policy” with an “appropriate” UK framework, to underpin “the sustainable growth and competitiveness” of the agri-food sector, and to “safeguard our continued ability to trade effectively and profitably both inwardly and outwardly”. DAERA added: “Northern Ireland will look for sufficient flexibility within the framework offered to enable the policy interventions to be tailored to the unique circumstances of this region.”
183.Asked whether the CAP should be replaced with a UK-wide framework policy for farming, Mr Ewing, of the Scottish Government, answered: “No. Agriculture and rural policy are fully devolved areas and the Scottish Government must retain its powers to manage policy and determine funding levels appropriately.” He added: “If there is a need to develop a common UK framework in specific areas of policy, this can be achieved through agreement and negotiation.”
184.In the absence of the coordination provided by the CAP, or a cohesive UK successor policy, the divergence of agricultural policies across the UK could cause problems for the UK’s internal single market as well as for international trade. In the words of Mr Wright, “At the moment we have a Single Market in regulation here in the UK … sort of imposed by our membership of the EU. After we have exited … we will, in effect, have three or four markets because the regulatory framework is different in each of the devolved nations.”
185.Illustrating this potential divergence within the UK agri-food market, Professor Joseph McMahon, Dean of the Sunderland School of Law at University College Dublin, pointed out that approval of genetically modified (GM) organisms was a devolved matter: “Both Northern Ireland and Scotland have indicated that they wish to be GM-free, which would suggest that if, for example, England and Wales were to declare that they wanted to be GM-friendly, there is the possibility of having to have border checks within the UK to ensure that you are not importing GM food.”
186.Dr Greer focused on the tension between devolution and international trade and competition policy, “matters that are reserved to the ‘UK’ government, but which nonetheless have major implications for the exercise of devolved powers”. This would create its own pressures: “Because of the need to maintain valuable export markets there will be pressures to align regulations and standards closely to those in force in the EU, and/or there will be limitations imposed by WTO rules in cases where these apply directly.”
187.The Minister told us: “We are not going to take away from the devolved Administrations any of the decision-making powers they currently have within the context of the EU system.” He also stated: “I think there is a consensus, particularly among the industry, that you need some kind of UK framework, but within that you want to make sure that the devolved Administrations have the freedom to pursue policies that work for them as well.”
188.We note that the Government’s white paper, Legislating for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, states:
“Examples of where common UK frameworks may be required include where they are necessary to protect the freedom of businesses to operate across the UK single market and to enable the UK to strike free trade deals with third countries … It is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of [the Great Repeal Bill process] will be a significant increase in the decision making power of each devolved administration.”
189.Farming landscapes vary significantly across the UK, and agriculture is rightly a devolved policy area. Though implementation of CAP policies already varies, Brexit will allow the devolved administrations to tailor agriculture policies even more closely to their farmers and land.
190.But the UK has an internal single market, in which agri-food plays a significant role. It is in the interest of all in the agri-food sector, as well as of consumers, that the integrity of the UK market be preserved. This will require either a UK-wide framework or the negotiation of co-ordinated agricultural policies by the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations. We encourage the Government to pursue dialogue on this issue as a matter of urgency.
191.Trade policy is a reserved matter, so the sum of agricultural policy across the UK must respect the UK’s external trade commitments. The UK Government will need to work closely with the Devolved Administrations to ensure that this is the case.
192.Once the UK withdraws from the EU, competence over agricultural policy will revert to the UK. Some witnesses told us a period of transition would be needed to achieve this transfer. From a food and drinks perspective, the FDF supported “the effective transfer of EU regulatory requirements to the UK in the immediate post-exit phase … to provide stability, continued access to EU markets and to maintain consumer confidence”. The RSPB agreed: “The first step must be to retain existing regulations through the Great Repeal Bill in order to retain the protections that these provide.”
193.Some witnesses qualified this position. For example, the National Sheep Association supported the principle of the Great Repeal Bill only “as long as this is not a permanent situation and specific policies are revisited in the near future”. Similarly, Farmwel argued: “The Great Repeal Bill should be used to transfer all EU law to the UK, after which industry-specific bills should be used to propose and scrutinise material changes.”
194.As we noted in our report Brexit: environment and climate change, transferring regulations by the means of the Great Repeal Bill will be a complex undertaking. Pamela Thompson, Head of the EU Exit Team for Animal and Plant Health at Defra, spoke to this complexity, telling us:
“Quite a considerable proportion of the Defra legislative framework is in the animal and plant health and animal welfare area, about a third of the whole of the department’s legislation. We have been through everything, we have looked at how operable it would be, we have identified areas that would not be operable and we have plans in place to deal with those.”
195.As we have noted, devolution, and the differences of view on the extent to which responsibility for agriculture will be devolved, could create further complications, legal and political. As Dr Greer told us:
“The Scottish government is clear in its white paper that any decisions about devolved matters as a result of the Great Repeal Bill such as in agricultural policy (or if the effect of the Bill is to take powers back to Westminster) will require the consent of the Scottish parliament under the Sewel Convention. Apart from the legal complexities, the main problems are likely to be political, especially if the introduction of the Great Repeal Bill alters current understandings about the nature and extent of devolved powers in agriculture.”
196.The Minister noted that legislative action would be needed in the Devolved Administrations as well:
“Some of the EU Directives and EU Regulations that we are pulling across through the Great Repeal Bill will require the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament to do something similar in their own legislatures to bring some of those across. So there is an enormous amount of joint working going on on that very technical exercise.”
197.Mr Lancaster identified a further layer of complexity, namely that the scope of the transfer of agricultural regulations should extend to the principles that underpin such regulation, such as “the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive”. His argument was that “These apply to the way legislation is developed, which make legislators take account of the impact on the environment when legislating in other areas. We would want to see those hard-wired into UK legislation.” Similarly, Compassion in World Farming argued in favour of retaining the principle that animals are sentient beings.
198.NFU Cymru focused on the way regulation changed over time, noting that the transferred legislation “will be rendered static, and will slowly start to date. Should post-Brexit trading arrangements require that the UK and Wales be observant of much EU law, then this presents a potential problem.” They noted that if the Government decided to continue to shadow developments in EU legislation to enable trade with the EU, this would “give rise to a significant and ultimately open ended task”.
199.The Minister identified two potential approaches to establishing agricultural regulations in the UK after Brexit, though he did not state a preference for either:
“The options range from bringing big elements of the Common Agricultural Policy across through the Great Repeal Bill and having, effectively, a sort of rolling forward in the interim until we have planned what we want to do. That is one option. The other option would be to try to do something a little more radical and go for primary legislation in a shorter timeframe so that we had something that could come in new from 2020, which might look quite different from the CAP or, indeed, might be on a trajectory to something different but would start by looking quite like the CAP and morph into a new UK policy.”
200.We heard strong support for the Government’s approach of an initial transfer of EU agri-food regulations into UK law via the Great Repeal Bill, followed by a considered review of where improvements could be made.
201.We welcome the groundwork already completed in relation to transferring EU legislation on animal welfare and plant health into UK law, and invite the Government to confirm that the same process will soon be completed in relation to other aspects of agricultural legislation.
202.In our report Brexit: environment and climate change, we noted that EU environmental law does not stand alone: its implementation is monitored and enforced by EU institutions. The same applies to the agricultural sector. As Peter Hardwick, Head of Exports at the AHDB, noted, “at some stage in the regulation or piece of legislation there is an intervening European regulatory body involved”. The CVO confirmed that “We do relate to a number of EU bodies across the area of health and welfare, which gives us strength … we are part of a network of laboratories that provide very high levels of diagnostic capability. That gives us surveillance at EU level and connectivity across the world.” The CVO concluded that it would be in the UK’s interest to maintain that connectivity. The National Office of Animal Health (NOAH) also raised coordination with EU agencies as an important issue: “Co-operation with EU regulators on the policing and enforcement of the [veterinary medicines] rules will need careful consideration.”
203.One key EU regulator is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and Prof McMahon told us: “I would hope that the UK would become an observer at the EFSA and its bodies in much the same way as Switzerland is an observer in those bodies.” In contrast, Alan Matthews, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at Trinity College Dublin, stated: “You would want to establish close links, and there may be ways of doing that, but I do not see the UK remaining a member of the EFSA and being able to participate in its work directly.”
204.In Chapter 3 we noted the administrative challenges associated with the control of standards and trade in agricultural products. Which? emphasised that “An effective enforcement regime must be in place to ensure compliance with these standards, so that consumers have confidence in the products that they buy”. They further noted that the European Commission currently played a key role in conducting such checks: “The European Commission (DG Sante) has dedicated inspectors in third countries that the EU imports from who check facilities and help ensure compliance with EU laws. Outside of the single market, the UK … would also need to step up its own checks, both on exports and on imports.”
205.Mr Dunn concluded: “We certainly need to be scoping out what new institutions and what new bodies we need to ensure there is adequate governance for this new body of legislation that we are going to be inheriting.”
206.The Minister said he was considering options including a transitional period, where the UK continued to work with EU agencies, or establishing UK agencies: “Although the latter would require some beefing up of some of the agencies we have now, it is certainly not beyond the wit of man to do … We have all of the infrastructure and the expertise, so we would simply be changing the scope of their role slightly.”
207.EU agricultural regulation is underpinned by European institutions that monitor and enforce much of the legislative framework and international commitments. The Government will need to either ensure that these institutions’ roles can be carried out by independent domestic bodies, or negotiate enduring relationships with the EU agencies and entities to ensure high standards of food safety and quality after Brexit.
250 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (consolidated version of 26 October 2012)
251 HM Government, Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Agriculture (2014), p 16: [accessed 19 April 2017]
252 Compare these objectives with those set out in the Agricultural Act 1947,
253 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, (20 December 2013)
254 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, (20 December 2013)
255 Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (20 December 2013
256 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, (20 December 2013)
257 House of Commons Library, Brexit: impact across policy areas, , August 2016, p 52
258 European Commission, ‘Food safety: overview’, (April 2017): [accessed 21 April 2017]
259 One NFU survey suggested that approximately 40% of NFU members voted to leave (Guy Smith, ).
263 Written evidence from NFU Cymru ()
265 Written evidence from Agricultural Industries Confederation ()
268 Council Directive 2000/60/EC of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, (22 December 2000), pp 0001–0073
269 Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, (31 December 1991), pp 0001–0008
270 Supplementary written evidence from NFU ()
271 Written evidence from Farmers’ Union of Wales ()
272 This rule, officially the CAP’s “crop diversification measure”, requires farmers with over 10 hectares of arable land to grow at least two or three crops, depending on the size of their land.
274 ; also (George Dunn)
275 Environment secretary Andrea Leadsom MP, Speech setting out ambition for food and farming industry, 4 January 2017: [accessed 23 March 2017]
276 Before a plant protection product (or pesticide) can be used in the EU, it must be scientifically evaluated by its manufacturer. The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) then conducts an assessments of that evaluation at the European level, based on which the European Commission proposes approval or non-approval to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. Member States in that Standing Committee must ultimately vote on the approval for a pesticide at the EU level.
278 Written evidence from Crop Protection Association ()
279 Written evidence from nabim ()
280 (Guy Smith), written evidence from British Growers Association () and Agricultural Industries Confederation ()
281 Written evidence from the UK Pesticides Campaign ()
283 Written evidence from Scottish Government ()
284 See for instance (Tim Breitmeyer), written evidence from the National Pig Association ()
286 Written evidence from Agricultural Industries Confederation ()
288 Written evidence from Dr Viviane Gravey, Dr Brian Jack and Dr Lee McGowan ()
291 ; also written evidence from Sustain () and supplementary written evidence from IGD ().
292 European Union Committee, (16th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 129), para 155
293 European Union Committee, (16th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 129), para 184
294 HM Government, Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Agriculture, (2014), p 19: [accessed 19 April 2017]
295 European Union Select Committee, ‘Brexit: devolution’: [accessed 25 April 2017]
296 Written evidence from Dr Viviane Gravey, Dr Brian Jack and Dr Lee McGowan ()
297 Written evidence from Dr Alan Greer ()
298 Written evidence from NFU Scotland ()
299 Written evidence from NFU Scotland ()
300 Written evidence from Welsh Government ()
301 Written evidence from Welsh Government ()
302 Written evidence from DAERA - Northern Ireland ()
303 Written evidence from Scottish Government ()
306 Written evidence from Dr Alan Greer ()
307 Written evidence from Dr Alan Greer ()
310 Department for Exiting the European Union, Legislating for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, Cm 9446, March 2017, p 28: [accessed 6 April 2017]
311 Supplementary written evidence from Food and Drink Federation ()
312 Written evidence from RSPB (); also NFU Cymru (), Scottish Land & Estates () and (Prof Nigel Gibbens)
313 Written evidence from National Sheep Association ()
314 Written evidence from Scottish Land & Estates (); also The Food Foundation (), (Tim Breitmeyer) and (Pamela Thompson)
315 European Union Committee, (12th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 109), p 22
317 Written evidence from Dr Alan Greer ()
320 Written evidence from Compassion in World Farming ()
321 Written evidence from NFU Cymru (); also Welsh Government ()
325 Written evidence from National Office of Animal Health ()
328 Written evidence from Which? ()