TORY power grab plans have been described as a “Trojan horse” for Trump’s America that could lead to chlorinated chicken being foisted upon Scotland despite objections from Holyrood.
The UK Government yesterday insisted on its plans to legislate for a UK-wide internal market after Brexit would not lead to lower standards. It was, it said, about giving businesses the “regulatory clarity and certainty” they need.
“It will ensure that the cost of doing business in the UK will remain as low as possible,” Tory Business Minister Alok Sharma told MPs. “This is not about ideology, this is about pragmatism.”
The minister was speaking as the Government published a white paper setting out the internal market’s framework for consultation.
The most contentious part of the proposal is for a “mutual recognition” regime. The paper says this is to ensure “that the rules governing the production and sale of goods and services in one part of the UK are
recognised as being as good as the rules in any other part of the UK, and they should therefore present no barrier to the flow of goods and services between different regulatory systems”.
This is to prevent one of the four nations of the UK “blocking products or services from another part”.
Effectively, if passed, it will mean that the administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast can set their own standards, but will have to take products from other parts of the UK, even if they are of a lower standard.
For the SNP, the worry is that Downing Street, desperate for a post-Brexit trade deal with the US, could allow cheap American food imports, including chlorinated chicken, into the UK.
The SNP’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford told MPs: “The only recognition here is that it is a plan for a race to the bottom on standards.
“It will mean a reduction in standards in one part of the UK driving down standards elsewhere, even if that is in direct contradiction of the devolved administrations and their rights and powers.
“We all know how desperate this Tory Government are to sell out food standards in return for a US trade deal.
“There we have it: no new powers and a plan to destroy Scotland’s world-class food and drink
standards – not a parliament in Edinburgh of equals, but one where we legislate only with the approval of Westminster.”
His colleague Kenny MacAskill later said that while a “mutual recognition regime” sounded benign, it would allow animals treated appallingly into the UK’s food chain.
“To paraphrase the old adage, should we beware this time not of Greeks but of the British bearing gifts, less than a Trojan horse but this time for Trump’s America?” he asked.
In his opening statement, Sharma rejected accusations that the new legislation would lead to lower standards.
“The UK economy has some of the highest standards in the world. We go beyond EU rules in many areas, including health and safety in the workplace, workers’ rights, food, health and animal welfare, consumer protections, household goods, net zero and the environment.
“We will maintain our commitment to high standards, as we negotiate trade agreements that will provide jobs and growth to the United Kingdom. Through our common frameworks approach, we will support regulatory consistency across our internal market, so if the devolved administrations seek to agree standards across the UK economy, I say simply this: come and work with us.”
Speaking at the Scottish Government’s daily briefing, the First Minister said if the plans had been in place before now they could have stopped the Scottish Parliament being able to legislate for minimum pricing for alcohol and introducing a ban on genetically modified crops.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel