John Powell of the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA) yesterday told the House of Lords European Affairs Committee that post-Brexit sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers continue to impose unnecessary cost and friction on UK meat exports, despite UK and EU standards remaining closely aligned.

Giving evidence alongside Tom Bradshaw, President of the NFU and Richard Ballantyne, Chief Executive of British Ports Association, Powell said the practical impact of export health certificates, veterinary sign-off requirements and border procedures had created significant additional burdens for meat processors and exporters, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, many of whom had either scaled back or ceased exporting to the EU altogether because compliance costs now outweigh commercial returns. He came armed with some telling figures on the additional cost burdens currently being imposed.

Powell told the Committee that while the industry has adapted to the new trading environment, the current arrangements remain structurally inefficient compared with pre-Brexit trade and continue to undermine competitiveness in EU markets.

He argued that the UK meat sector (including primary producers) already operates to standards that are effectively equivalent to those of the EU, and that a pragmatic veterinary/SPS agreement between the UK and EU would deliver substantial benefits by reducing duplication, extra administrative costs and border delays while maintaining high standards of food safety and biosecurity.

While all witnesses agreed on the importance of safeguarding high production standards and improving trading conditions with the EU, Powell stressed the immediate operational and commercial need for measures that reduce export bureaucracy and restore smoother market access for UK meat businesses. 

Powell cited four specific requests that BMPA has of Parliament.

Firstly, it should support the Government’s aim of achieving the widest ranging SPS agreement as possible to remove the current friction and costs. It should also support a short but flexible Transition Period taking into account certain changes that might take longer to implement but not drawing out the process unnecessarily.

He also called on Parliament to support the Government in completing the required parliamentary steps efficiently. Importantly his fourth ask was that, post an SPS agreement, Parliament ensures that the government puts in place the necessary transparent structures and resources to engage with the European Commission on new emerging legislative proposals but also industry stakeholders so they can provide the necessary technical and commercial input. He also proposed stronger parliamentary scrutiny on all proposed future changes initiated by the EU that the UK would be required to adopt.

A recording of the evidence session can be viewed here.