The latest EFRA Committee report, published this week, contains many sensible recommendations to help Government in its negotiations with the EU on a new SPS agreement to remove costly barriers to trade.

However, we must be realistic when considering one of the central calls for a carve-out on animal welfare rules. It says that the Committee considers “it is vital that the Government seeks exemptions from dynamic alignment with the EU for animal welfare. Alongside safeguarding regulatory autonomy, the Government must also ensure that UK farmers are not undercut by imports produced to lower welfare standards.”

The reality is that, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, neither the UK nor any other country can restrict trade on the basis of differing animal welfare rules. This allows individual countries and jurisdictions the freedom to set their own animal welfare rules, diverging from the rules of their trading partners without any loss of trade access.

It’s always been this way, demonstrated by the fact that we already trade with the EU (and Australia, US, Brazil etc.) whilst having different animal welfare rules. A good example of this is the UK’s ban on stalls and tethers which came into force well before they were banned in the EU and while the UK was still an EU member. This did not enable us to restrict imports under either EU rule at the time nor under WTO rules had we not been an EU Member State.

Both before and after Brexit there has been nothing stopping us or any other country diverging on animal welfare rules; and it is somewhat misleading to suggest that we can ban such imports now.

Alignment will not weaken our current position on welfare, as we can impose our animal welfare rules domestically. But, unless there is a significant shift in WTO rules, we can’t impose these rules on imports as things stand. The reality is that the EU’s position on animal welfare is far closer to ours than that of  many countries we currently trade with.

The subject of current negotiations is animal health – Sanitary and PhytoSanitary (SPS). And it is in this area that our negotiators must agree pragmatic changes and a realistic transitional timeframe that allows for a smooth and cost-effective change over for labelling and packaging.

As we’ve said in a previous article, if we end up with a long list of red lines that deliver marginal benefits for a few but delay or weaken a deal that could remove friction for the entire sector, we will all be worse off.

The prize here is not a collection of niche exemptions. The prize is the near-elimination of the crippling trade friction that is holding the whole industry back.

We want the government to negotiate firmly and confidently in the UK’s interests. But we also want it to keep its eyes firmly on the bigger picture of growth, competitiveness, food security and a properly functioning trading system.