Chapter 2: Food and agricultural produce trade
Background and context
13.The EU sets standards for food, farm animal health and welfare, and plant protection products, and has put in place regulatory frameworks that govern genetically modified organisms, organic farming, plants and plant products, and the marketing of seeds and plant reproductive materials. These measures facilitate the free movement of food and agricultural produce within the EU Single Market. While a Member State, these standards and regulatory frameworks applied to the UK and it benefited from trading freely within the EU Single Market. We considered this in detail in our report Brexit: agriculture.22
14.In the absence of agreements with the EU, a third country23 trading into the EU typically faces tariff and non-tariff barriers. Tariffs are established by the EU’s Common External Tariff and apply alongside customs processes. Food and agricultural produce entering the EU market must also comply with the EU’s standards and regulations, and faces specific non-tariff barriers associated with sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, which are in place to protect human, animal and plant life from risks associated with pests, diseases, additives, contaminants and toxins.24
15.By virtue of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, EU customs legislation and product regulations continue to apply to Northern Ireland. This enables goods to be moved between Northern Ireland and Ireland and the other EU Member States without tariffs or new regulatory checks. There will be checks required on the movement of food and agricultural products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, though in December 2020 the Government and the European Commission agreed a number of limited grace periods that took effect from the end of the transition period, during which reduced requirements for paperwork and controls will apply to those movements.25
16.During the Brexit process, the food and agricultural produce sectors emphasised the key role of the EU export market for the viability of their businesses, due to both the volume of those exports and the demand for animal products for which there is no market in the UK.26 As with other sectors, the UK and EU’s food manufacturing supply chains have also become closely integrated.27
The Trade and Cooperation Agreement
17.The EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)28 provides for tariff- and quota-free trade between Great Britain and the EU if a product meets ‘rules of origin’ requirements—criteria used to determine where a product was made. The TCA allows EU components used in the manufacture of GB products, and vice versa, to count towards a product meeting rules of origin requirements and so qualifying for tariff-free trade.
18.With regard to customs, Article CUSTMS.17 requires each Party to endeavour to establish a single window through which traders can submit documentation for the import, export and transit of goods.
19.The ‘Trade in Goods’ Title of the TCA includes a chapter on SPS measures (Chapter 3), one objective of which is to ensure that the Parties’ SPS measures do not create unnecessary barriers to trade (Article SPS.1(c)). A Trade Specialised Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures is established elsewhere in the TCA (Article INST.2(d)), and Article SPS.19(d) provides the Committee with a power to regularly review the two Parties’ SPS measures in order to facilitate trade between them.
20.The TCA also includes a specific annex on organic products, which provides for the recognition of one another’s organics regimes as equivalent (Annex TBT-4: Organic Products).
21.Organisations from across the food and agricultural produce sectors were relieved that the TCA provides for tariff-free trade. Nick von Westenholz, Director of International Trade and Business Strategy at the National Farmers’ Union, told us: “The overriding reaction from us … was probably relief. The implications of not securing a deal between the UK and the EU were pretty serious for agriculture, primarily because of the impact tariffs would have had on trade and agrifood products.”29
22.Which? noted the implications for consumers if the Government and the EU had failed to reach an agreement: “If tariffs had been imposed consumers would have seen significant price rises, with tariffs on food especially high.”30
23.The Rt Hon George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, also singled out what the TCA achieves on tariffs: “The first thing to say is that the Agreement that we have delivers tariff-free trade on all goods. It is fair to say that that will be a relief for most sectors … It does so in a way that preserves our regulatory autonomy.”31
24.Witnesses were less positive about other aspects of the TCA, especially the SPS Chapter. James Russell, President of the British Veterinary Association (BVA), told us that the SPS Chapter is “very thin” and “essentially restates” what already exists at the World Organisation for Animal Health and World Trade Organization (WTO) level.32 Dominic Goudie, Head of International Trade at the Food and Drink Federation, agreed: “For sanitary and phytosanitary checks the reality is that there is very little difference from a no-deal scenario … We have less generous access on sanitary and phytosanitary checks than New Zealand, who do not even have a preferential trade deal with the EU.”33
25.Tariffs and quotas on food and agricultural produce trade would have threatened the viability of some producers and led to rises in consumer food prices. We share the relief of businesses that an agreement was reached that provides for tariff and quota-free trade.
26.We are disappointed that the Government and the EU did not achieve more through the sanitary and phytosanitary measures Chapter of the TCA. This has resulted in substantial barriers to trade which risk reducing the profitability of parts of Great Britain’s food and agricultural produce sectors. We recommend that the Government seeks supplementary agreements with the EU in these areas, along the lines of the EU-New Zealand agreement. We find it strange that the TCA accomplishes less on sanitary and phytosanitary measures in comparison.
Making the agreement work with the EU
Trade Specialised Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
27.James Russell noted that there will be a potential avenue to resolve SPS issues with the EU through one of the committees established by the TCA: “We welcome that the Trade Specialised Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures will exist where the two sides can meet to discuss those issues and hopefully simplify things as much as they can within the deal.”34 Nick von Westenholz urged the Government and the EU to set up the body quickly.35
28.Which? stressed the importance of the Trade Specialised Committee on SPS Measures reflecting consumers’ interests:
“[It] will have an important role in defining how provisions are applied and therefore the standards that UK consumers can expect … It is important that the Committee has strong consumer interest representation from across government and operates transparently.”36
The BVA also called for the Government to engage industry and the veterinary profession on solutions to bring to the Committee.37
29.The Secretary of State explained: “On the Specialised Committee on SPS, we will be in discussion with the EU about the membership of that. It has not met yet, and the membership is not yet finally settled … The purpose of the committee will be to work through and resolve any bilateral issues there are in the SPS field.”38 In the same session on 3 February 2021, Mark Thompson, Deputy Director of EU Strategy and Negotiations at Defra, added: “None of the committees under the TCA has yet formally agreed dates to meet … We might expect the arrangements to be made in the next few weeks.”39
30.In a letter to the Chair of the EU Select Committee on 23 February, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP, said, “We do not consider that the Partnership Council and other bodies established under Title III of the Agreement should begin their work formally during the period of provisional application.”40 On the same day, the Government accepted the EU’s request to extend provisional application of the TCA to 30 April, pending ratification by the European Parliament.41
31.We regret the Government’s decision to defer establishing the Partnership Council and other bodies and urge it to review this position. We are especially frustrated by the delay in setting up the Trade Specialised Committee on SPS Measures. We urge the Government to work with the European Commission to set up the Committee swiftly, and for it to operate inclusively and with transparency.
Future regulatory divergence
32.Witnesses noted that the central achievement of the TCA, tariff and quota-free trade, could be put at risk by future divergence. This is because the rebalancing mechanism in the TCA could allow a Party to introduce tariffs if significant divergences in environment or climate protection, among other areas, were to affect trade or investment between the Parties.42 Nick von Westenholz told us: “There is an elephant in the room. We are dealing with the here and now, but central to the Agreement is the possibility of regulatory divergence in future, maybe in the quite near future, and the potential implications of either side introducing new trade barriers, through tariffs, for example.”43
33.Regardless of the potential impact upon tariff-free trade, the National Sheep Association (NSA) noted that instances of regulatory divergence could result in increased checks on Great Britain’s exports to the EU: “Our exploration of gene editing will be seen as inflammatory so soon after leaving the EU and is likely to result in increasing safeguards and checks.”44
34.Nick von Westenholz therefore urged the Government to develop an approach to regulatory divergence that factors in the potential trade barriers that may arise as a consequence, “So that we do not find ourselves suddenly facing additional trade barriers to those that already exist and that we are trying to mitigate.”45
35.Trade in food and agricultural produce between Great Britain and the EU will suffer if significant policy divergences on either side lead to tariffs and increased checks being introduced. Both sides should thoroughly assess potential trade barriers that may arise as they develop approaches to regulating and supporting food and agricultural production.
GB-EU trade: preparing to export
Listing and equivalence
36.Non-EU states must be granted ‘third country listing’ by the EU before they can export many food and agricultural products to the EU market. This entails meeting certain regulatory requirements, which can include having systems in place that are equivalent to those that apply within the EU. Further to listing, trade partners can reach an agreement to recognise one another’s regulatory regimes for certain products as equivalent, which can reduce the levels of paperwork and border controls—a point stressed to us by Peter Alvis, Chairman of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, in December.46 The terms ‘listing’ and ‘equivalence’ are sometimes used interchangeably.
37.The Government secured third country listing shortly before the end of 2020,47 allowing the UK to continue exporting animal products to the EU. However, Dominic Goudie highlighted that the EU had not made a positive listing decision for all products before the end of the transition period: “The list of prohibited and restricted goods that came in on 1 January means that seed potato producers and producers of certain types of fresh and processed meat products have had a hard stop to their trade with the EU and are not able to continue exporting.”48 The Agricultural Industries Confederation told us that trade in seeds was affected.49 Dominic Goudie said that “in the case of the seed potato industry an application has gone to the EU to try to get approval for its sector”.50 At the time of writing, the European Commission has reportedly dismissed the Government’s most recent listing application for seed potatoes.51
38.More positively, the Agricultural Industries Confederation were pleased that the TCA’s organic products annex includes agreement on equivalence: “The TCA’s equivalence agreement on organics is very welcome, as it means that products certified as organic in one market can be recognised as organic in the other.”52
39.In response to our concerns over listing, the Secretary of State responded: “Although some goods are still unable to be exported, we are continuing to press for prohibitions that were not lifted in December 2020 to be removed.”53 On equivalence, he said:
“We have agreed a framework that allows both the UK and the EU to take independent decisions on trade facilitations. It commits us both to avoiding unnecessary barriers overall … Given the EU’s rejection of equivalence, we have agreed an alternative approach that can deliver similar outcomes in terms of future non-tariff measure reductions.”54
40.Some of Great Britain’s exports of food and agricultural products to the EU, such as seed potatoes, have come to a complete halt following the end of the transition period, with severe impacts on the affected sectors.
41.We welcome the TCA’s equivalence agreement on organics, but we are dismayed that the agrifood sector more widely is facing increased trade frictions because other equivalence agreements could not be reached.
A marked increase in paperwork and preparation required
42.The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) summarised the new trading arrangements and their implications for food and agricultural produce:
“The UK is now trading with the EU as a third country. As such the so called ‘trade friction’, the additional physical checks, advance notification of loads, export health certificates, labelling requirements and extra time spent crossing borders all add cost in agricultural supply chains that are designed to be ‘just in time’ with little room for slippage and where margins are already squeezed.”55
43.Alvis Bros Ltd used the example of exporting an organic product of animal origin with some third party ingredients:
“We estimate that there are now approximately 44 steps to export to EU versus the 7 steps we enjoyed when part of the single market and customs union. We move from a lead time of approximately 2 weeks to a lead time of over 4 weeks—the new arrangements are making us slower, less flexible and add cost.”56
Alvis Bros Ltd added: “We can expect that the requirements will be too much for small, niche organic producers on their own.”57
44.Dominic Goudie explained that the paperwork is not yet all online: “As far as export health certificates and rules of origin are concerned, a lot of work is still paper-based for the industry. A lot of the systems in place operate for government, but businesses have to do a lot of manual form-filling.”58
45.On top of the additional certification required, Andrew Opie, Director of Food and Sustainability at the British Retail Consortium, noted challenges associated with a requirement to provide advanced notification of export: “The other problem with … the situation away from the border is the notification period that is required to send products of animal origin to the European Union, which currently is 24 hours. That does not suit a just-in-time delivery system, such as supermarkets.”59
46.Prior to export, some products now must undergo additional tests for the presence of disease or parasites. This is delaying trade in some cases, as illustrated by the AHDB: “Trichinella60 testing is a limiting factor on our pork exports.”61
47.Organisations suggested a number of solutions to streamline trade. The NSA, British Poultry Council, and Andrew Skea, Chair of the Brexit Committee at the British Potato Trade Association, all argued that rolling-out fully electronic certification should be a top priority, and Alvis Bros Ltd emphasised that this should be integrated with the data being “seamlessly” added to the EU TRACES system.62 Dairy UK highlighted that the TCA foresees a simplification of the portals through which exporters must submit documentation:
“Dairy UK … attach particular importance to the clause in the agreement which commits both parties to establish a single window that enables traders to submit documentation or data required for importation, exportation, or transit of goods … This could present significant opportunities to reduce trade administration costs.”63
48.The Secretary of State told us: “The agreement allows the UK and the EU to cooperate and over time, this will help to reduce the burden on businesses from border controls and certification requirements.”64 He added: “The UK is aiming to introduce the capability to exchange ePhytos65 during 2021.”66
49.The increases in paperwork and preparation required for food and agricultural exports to the EU are presenting very difficult challenges for the sector, particularly small businesses.
50.We deeply regret that certification processes are not yet fully electronic nor streamlined. The Government should move quickly on these fronts, updating and integrating systems as far as possible. We call on both Parties to the TCA each to urgently establish a single window where traders can submit documentation.
Veterinary capacity
51.Export health certificates confirm that exports of live animals and animal products meet the health requirements of the destination country. They are required for exports to the EU from third countries and must be signed by a vet. Helen Roberts, Development Officer of the NSA, raised concerns with us in December that the UK may not have sufficient veterinary capacity to meet the increased volume of certificates required: “We do not feel that there will be enough vets on the ground to do all this work.”67
52.There is also uncertainty around exactly how many more vets are now required for certification. The BVA explained:
“Defra estimated an additional 200 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) [official veterinarians] will be required to certify export of [products of animal origin] from Great Britain. Businesses involved in export certification work, put the number higher requiring at least 350 FTE additional vets. Translating an FTE figure into the actual number of [official veterinarians] needed is a further complexity.”68
53.The BVA added that the end of grace periods for movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and the phased introduction of controls on imports to Great Britain from the EU mean that demand for vets will continue to increase.69
54.Witnesses proposed a range of possible solutions to reduce the risk that veterinary capacity becomes a limiting factor on trade. These included proposals both to reduce the demands placed on vets, and to increase the intake and retention of public health vets in the long-term.70
55.Peter Alvis and the Secretary of State said that providing certification may not be the best use of a vet’s time. They suggested respectively that the use of either technical managers or para-professionals—staff who support the work of a vet—could reduce demand on vets.71 The Government has encouraged the use of Certification Support Officers to perform such a role.72 James Russell suggested that apprenticeships might be developed to train para-professionals.73
56.However, James Russell also highlighted that the veterinary profession must continue to play a role, given that trade partners require certificates to carry a vet’s signature.74 The Secretary of State similarly referred to this requirement.75
57.The Secretary of State also noted that the Government had taken steps to increase veterinary capacity:
“We are working hard to increase the number of official certifiers of these certificates to meet demand … The number of vets able to sign [export health certificates] for animal products has grown from c. 600 to over 1500 since February 2019. Working with [the Animal and Plant Health Agency] and the [Food Standards Agency] we have put in place a surge capacity function for both local authorities and veterinary certification providers as short-term support.”76
58.It is unclear whether there will be sufficient veterinary capacity to meet the increases in demand for export health certification as the grace periods currently in place fall away. We welcome the Government’s steps to increase veterinary capacity. It is essential that the Government continues to monitor this serious issue closely and takes steps to ensure sufficient capacity is in place.
59.We welcome the Government’s promotion of the use of Certification Support Officers. We believe apprenticeships should be developed to improve the professional development offer for veterinary paraprofessionals like these.
60.Trade certification activities are important but often not the best use of a vet’s time and expertise. The Government should explore with the EU and other trade partners whether the requirement for export health certificates to carry a vet’s signature could be removed or adapted. This could take time to negotiate but ultimately would free up valuable veterinary capacity.
GB-EU trade: in the truck and at the border
Haulage challenges
61.Witnesses told us that some firms have been struggling to get food and agricultural produce into the EU market since 1 January because of the increased cost of haulage and challenges with different delivery services. Duncan Buchanan, Director of Policy for England and Wales at the Road Haulage Association, told us back in December that prices of haulage could increase after the end of the transition period.77 The Provision Trade Federation more recently confirmed that higher haulage rates—arising due to the post-Brexit operating environment—are having knock-on impacts on the food and agricultural produce markets: “UK exporters, unable or unwilling to pay these higher rates, or to risk delays to their own loads, are accordingly having to divert products to the domestic market (resulting in lower returns) or to reduce output, or both, adding to cumulative impacts on profitability.”78
62.Hauliers carry different consignments together, often from smaller businesses, in a transport model known as groupage. Alvis Bros Ltd told us: “Groupage is challenging … and is presenting hauliers with many issues.”79 The Secretary of State acknowledged that “groupage has been a bit of a challenge”, and explained that there had been problems both with the paperwork for one consignment preventing a whole lorry from proceeding, and with coordinating the certification activities of vets—required now that the UK is a third country—for the different consignments.80
63.Nick von Westenholz told us that small businesses who use regular parcel services are also facing challenges:
“They do not use trucks or logistic firms; they simply use well-known parcel delivery companies. We have heard that many of those are now refusing to deliver packages of products of animal origin—for example, from a small dairy company shipping high-quality cheese in single packs to EU customers. That has simply been stopped, probably because of overly zealous interpretation of the Agreement on how the SPS rules apply.”81
64.Higher haulage rates and issues with groupage and parcel delivery services are putting further pressure on food and agricultural produce exporters, especially smaller businesses.
65.The Government must resolve the issues with Great Britain to EU groupage transport. We urge the Government to also promote understanding within parcel delivery companies about trade in food and agricultural produce under the TCA.
Delays at the border and inconsistent application of rules
66.The British Food Importers and Distributors Association told us it was now taking longer to transport food and agricultural produce through border control posts (BCPs): “The complexity of the new rules applied to exports from the UK now that it is a third country, and the substantive amount of paperwork that is needed for example in the dairy and meat sector, means lorries take much longer clearing controls on either side of the Channel.”82
67.Perishable products can lose value due to the delays. The British Poultry Council told us: “Any delays during the export process could result in businesses losing 50–100% of the value of the product depending on the length of delay and the amount which might have to be redirected to rendering or elsewhere.”83 Helen Roberts and Peter Alvis argued that the perishability of meat and dairy produce meant they should be treated as priorities at BCPs.84 Seafood produce has also seen its value reduce due to export delays; we explore this in Chapter 3.
68.Andrew Opie emphasised that the impact of increased checks on the flow of goods was not yet clear because of the phased introduction of Great Britain’s controls: “We are only in the foothills of all these issues. It is important that the committee remembers that the UK has not put its own border controls in place. Our businesses, which are primarily looking at the import issue, will not face certification until April, and full border checks until July.”85 The Government subsequently announced that it would delay further the introduction of border controls on incoming goods.86
69.The AHDB raised the issue of inconsistent implementation: “Currently, it would appear from anecdotal evidence that the EU is imposing the new rules enthusiastically, but not always coherently, and even experienced exporters are finding navigating the new regime challenging.”87 The Agricultural Industries Confederation also suggested that not all staff at EU BCPs were applying SPS rules correctly.88
70.We heard that getting clarity on the new rules has sometimes been difficult. Dominic Goudie noted: “One of the particular challenges we face at the moment is HMRC’s [(Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’)] capacity to talk to businesses and answer the questions that many of them are raising.”89
71.For some businesses there are no EU ports that currently accept their exports. The NSA told us that for exporting live animals to the EU, “everything is currently on hold due to there being no facilities at any of the EU sea ports to take live animals from a non-EU state”.90
72.The perishability of food and agricultural produce means that delays at the border can be particularly costly. EU exporters to Great Britain will not encounter these barriers and costs until the Government introduces its border controls. This might make EU border control officials more amenable to a change in practices on Great Britain’s exports. We urge the Government to continue monitoring the situation closely and act quickly to resolve issues that cause delays.
73.We recommend the Government raise two issues in the Trade Specialised Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: the consistent application of rules at border control posts, and the designation of EU ports to receive live animals.
74.The Government must ensure HMRC has sufficient resource to advise businesses on export issues, including for both back-office functions and customer-facing offices as close to traders as possible.
Northern Ireland
75.As noted above, distinct arrangements apply to Northern Ireland under the Protocol. Witnesses raised concerns about supplying food and agricultural produce to Northern Ireland once the grace periods have expired, and the instant application of certain SPS measures that mean some live animal trade is effectively banned for a considerable length of time.91 Andrew Opie explained:
“We were given grace periods, to exempt us from export health certification for three months, and to continue to export some products that you cannot export into the rest of the European Union, such as fresh meat preparations, for six months. Currently, we do not know how we will continue to transport beyond those periods.”92
76.Dominic Goudie told us businesses have “grave concerns” about the requirements that will apply after the grace periods. He added: “I think that many suppliers will struggle to supply to Northern Ireland unless there is a long-term solution that makes things significantly easier than reverting to the full EU third country requirements that would otherwise be the case.”93 Dairy UK told us of the possible implications: “The [sheer] complexity of meeting the requirements for servicing the market in Northern Ireland from Great Britain will result in some companies retreating from this market, reducing competition and consumer choice.”94
77.Which? raised concerns about Northern Ireland’s consumers: “Consumers in Northern Ireland already on average spend a higher percentage of their household expenditure on food than anywhere else in the UK, so will be hit particularly hard.”95
78.In early February the Secretary of State told us that longer-term solutions were being sought:
“Michael Gove, as our lead negotiator on the joint committee, has written to his opposite number, [Maroš Šefčovič], to raise a number of issues and proposals about how we can replace those easements, particularly on export health certificates for large retailers but also on so-called prohibitions and restrictions on things such as processed meats, with longer-term solutions … Those negotiations are about to commence.”96
79.At the time of writing the UK and EU had not agreed on solutions for the end of the grace periods, but on 3 March the UK Government unilaterally announced that it would extend some of them, describing this as “temporary operational steps to avoid disruptive cliff-edges”.97 The EU Select Committee wrote two letters to Lord Frost on 11 March in relation to the operation of the Protocol. In the first, the Committee noted the serious concern of Northern Ireland business about the need to avoid a damaging cliff-edge effect at the end of the various grace periods.98 In the second, the Committee asked the Government to set out the rationale behind making a unilateral announcement, rather than seeking to reach mutual agreement with the Commission in the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee.99
80.If workable arrangements cannot be found soon for the movement of food and agricultural produce from Great Britain to Northern Ireland the potential impacts on Northern Ireland’s consumers—as well as the political implications—will be acute. All parties should continue to focus on finding solutions so that goods can be moved as smoothly as possible. We trust that Lord Frost will recognise the urgency of the situation for Northern Ireland.
22 European Union Committee, Brexit: agriculture (20th Report, Session 2016–17, HL Paper 169)
23 A non-EU Member State.
24 This definition draws on the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) webpage on the WTO Agreement on SPS measures: World Trade Organisation, ‘Understanding the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm [accessed 24 February 2021]
25 Unilateral declarations by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Union in the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee on meat products; Unilateral declarations by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Union in the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee on official certification. Both available at: Cabinet Office, ‘The Northern Ireland Protocol’: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-northern-ireland-protocol [accessed 24 February 2021]
26 Oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), Q 1 (Martin Morgan and Helen Roberts)
40 Letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove to the Chair of the European Union Committee, Lord Kinnoull, dated 23 February 2021: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4775/documents/48216/default/
41 Letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove to. European Union Vice-President, Maroš Šefčovič, dated 23 February 2021: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/963820/CDL_to_Maros_Sefcovic.pdf
42 The rebalancing mechanism is explored in more detail in Chapter 4 of this report.
46 Oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), Q 8
47 Letter from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice to the Chair of the EU Environment Sub-Committee, Lord Teverson, dated 22 January 2021: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4664/documents/47031/default/
50 Ibid.
51 Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) ‘EU Exit Perspectives: Seed potatoes at EU crossroads’: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/eu-exit-perspectives-seed-potatoes-at-eu-crossroads [accessed 24 February 2021]
53 Letter from the Chair of the EU Environment Sub-Committee, Lord Teverson to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, dated 22 January 2021, p 3: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4664/documents/47031/default/
54 Letter from the Chair of the EU Environment Sub-Committee, Lord Teverson to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, dated 22 January 2021, p 2: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4664/documents/47031/default/
57 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Worms within the genus Trichinella can cause a disease called trichinellosis.
62 Written evidence from the NSA (EEH0018); the British Poultry Council (EEH0040); oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), Q 2; Alvis Bros Ltd (EEH0013). TRACES is the European Commission’s online platform for sanitary and phytosanitary certification.
64 Letter from the Chair of the EU Environment Sub-Committee, Lord Teverson to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, dated 22 January 2021, p 2: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4664/documents/47031/default/
65 An ePhyto is the electronic equivalent of a phytosanitary certificate.
66 Letter from the Chair of the EU Environment Sub-Committee, Lord Teverson to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, dated 22 January 2021, p 3: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4664/documents/47031/default/
67 Oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), Q 2
69 Ibid.
70 Written evidence from Alvis Bros Ltd (EEH0013); Dairy UK (EEH0025); Mandisa Greene, Q 14; Professor Susan Dawson, QQ 13-14 and James Russell, Q 14
71 Oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), Q 21 (Peter Alvis) and Q 55 (Rt Hon George Eustice MP)
76 Letter from the Chair of the EU Environment Sub-Committee, Lord Teverson to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice, dated 22 January 2021, p 3: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/4664/documents/47031/default/
77 Oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), Q 2
84 Oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), QQ 1-2
91 Written evidence from the NSA (EEH0018); oral evidence taken before the EU Environment Sub-Committee session on UK-EU agrifood trade, 16 December 2020 (Session 2019–21), Q 4 (Helen Roberts)
98 Letter from Lord Kinnoull, Chair of the European Union Committee to Lord Frost, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, dated 11 March 2021: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5055/documents/50169/default/
99 Letter from Lord Kinnoull, Chair of the European Union Committee to Lord Frost, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, dated 11 March 2021: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5056/documents/50170/default/. On 15 March 2021 the European Commission announced that, as a result of the UK’s unilateral action, it would commence infringement proceedings against the UK, and that unless the UK entered into consultations in the Joint Committee, in good faith, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreed solution, the EU would also trigger the dispute settlement procedure contained in the Withdrawal Agreement. See European Commission, ‘Withdrawal Agreement: Commission sends letter of formal notice to the United Kingdom for breach of its obligations under the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland’, 15 March 2021: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1132 [accessed 16 March 2021]