Britain's poorest households will be the biggest beneficiaries of Britain's departure from the European Union, according to a report published by a prominent Labour group.
The report, by the Labour Party’s pro-Brexit group Labour Leave, states that Britain's poorest households would be £36 a week better off due to the possibility of cheap food imports.
The reduction in prices and immigration control are "particularly important" for lower income households, the report states.
For example, lowering tariffs on imported goods, whether done as part of formal agreements or unilaterally, has the "potential to significantly" cut prices on goods, such as food.
It says: "These households spend more on food and housing, the prices of both of which are raised substantially by EU protectionism. Our estimates show that the lowest decile household would gain £36 a week from Brexit; the second lowest decile (60 per cent of the median) would gain £44 a week.
"These figures represent around 15 per cent of their weekly spend. We expect faster productivity growth in manufacturing and farming, with a rebalancing towards products where the UK has strong comparative advantage; nevertheless, we expect the Treasury to help farmers directly for environmental/land stewardship reasons."
"The fall in the exchange rate will provide a strong offsetting boost to all sectors in the short to medium term. It will boost net exports and investment by diverting funds from consumer incomes to industrial revenues; we are already seeing this in reduced consumption but improving business prospects."
'Sacrifices'
However, some farmers have voiced concerns over the prospect of a post-Brexit UK with a ‘cheap food agenda that sacrifices basic standards’.
In an article published by The Guardian, farmer Edward Barker said that uncertainty seems the only thing the farming industry can be sure of after 25 years of EU regulation.
Mr Barker, who manages a mixed 500 hectare farm in Northamptonshire growing cereals, with a beef and sheep enterprise, outlined concerns over the potential impact for farm businesses of withdrawing from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and highlighted the issues around post-Brexit trade deals.
He wrote: “We are, rightly, prevented from importing a number of different foods and products from outside the European Union because they do not meet set standards.
“Reports of possible new bilateral trade deals being done with non-EU countries leave me very fearful that we will have to compete in a marketplace where food is being produced to standards that are much lower than our own, and possibly even illegal if we were to do that here. Hormones in beef cattle, ractopamine in pigs and bromated flour are all such examples of this, and for me no one wins in this scenario.”
Differing standards
This has been reinforced by research by the National Pig Association (NPA), which highlights the differing welfare standards across the major pig producing countries, including the the UK, the major EU producers, the US, Canada and Brazil.
NPA senior policy advisor Georgina Crayford, who compiled the document, said: “When negotiating trade deals with third countries, it is vitally important that the UK pig sector is not undercut by imports of pork from countries with lower welfare standards. We must insist on equivalent standards.”
Howver, the AHDB has warned that the British Government could have difficulty trying to protect high welfare domestic farmers against overseas farmers operating to lower welfare, and lower cost, standards.
“Following the Brexit vote there has been a great deal of debate in the industry on whether the UK will adopt higher animal welfare standards, than those currently across the EU. In addition, there has be debate on whether the UK could use these higher standards, if adopted, as a barrier to restrict trade in below-standard products,” says the report, written by AHDB senior analyst Sarah Baker and David Swales, head of strategic insight.
Cheap food
The Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, who was one of the leaders of the campaign to leave the EU, is a proponent of free trade who said during the referendum campaign that leaving the European Union could provide British consumers with cheap food as a result of trade deals with emerging nations, although since taking up his Defra role he has spoken of protecting UK welfare standards.
Speaking to the East Anglian Daily Times during the Royal Norfolk Show, he said: “Farmers recognise that as we leave the EU there are opportunities because of the high quality produce that the UK is famous for, and Norfolk in particular is noted for.
“There is an opportunity to sell more abroad – but we also need to make sure that as we do sell abroad that we do not compromise our high environmental and animal welfare standards.”
His predecessor as Environment Secretary, Andrea Leadsom, said at the NFU conference earlier this year: “We have been very clear in our manifesto that high animal welfare standards will be a core part of any international free trade arrangements.
“I have been very clear that we will not seek to put ourselves in an uncompetitive position by reducing welfare or food safety or food traceability standards. It's a very key unique selling point for the UK. We don't want to do anything to undermine that.”
'International exemplar'
Farming Minister George Eustice said at the Egg & Poultry Industry Conference in November: “We want to make the UK the international exemplar when it comes to animal health and welfare.
“I would like us to pioneer new policies, new ways of working, to create a policy that is the envy of the world. I want us to get to a place where a decade from now the rest of the world will want to emulate policies that we put in place,” said the Minister.
However, more recently the Prime Minister refused to rule out lowering British food standards in order to secure a trade deal with the United States. Fears grew over the potential opening of the UK to imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone treated beef.
And speaking to BBC's Today programme, Mr Gove said all members of the government were 'agreed' that animal welfare standards will not be diluted.
