MOST Scottish Tory MPs voted against protecting food standards after Brexit last night.
Conservatives rejected a Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill, which would have forced trade deals to meet UK animal welfare and food safety standards. The effort was struck down by 332 votes to 279.
Campaigners say under the Agriculture Bill, the UK could be made to accept lower standards in order to secure a trade agreement with America. Farming groups and activists are concerned about possible imports of chlorinated chicken or beef fattened with hormones.
READ MORE: Brexit: Damning survey reveals mass opposition to Tory chicken plans
But the UK Government claims EU rules which ban importing these kinds of products will automatically come into UK law on December 31.
As the legislation went through the Lords, peers made several changes. They wanted to give MPs a veto over parts of trade deals relating to food imports and called for them to comply with “relevant domestic standards”.
Four Scottish Tory MPs voted to back government plans to reject the amendment. These MPs were David Duguid, the MP for Banff and Buchan, Alister Jack, the MP for Dumfries and Galloway, Andrew Bowie (above), the MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and John Lamont, who represents Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.
Lamont claimed he rejected the proposals because they were “not in the interests” of food producers and would be “bad for trade”.
Meanwhile, no vote was recorded for David Mundell of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, the MP for Moray, voted to support the amendment.
The SNP voted to support the amendment.
Ross’s rebellion comes after the National Farmers Union of Scotland accused him of misleading the public on food standards earlier this year.
The organisation demanded an apology after Ross defended his vote against Clause 11 of the UK Trade Bill, which sought to protect food standards after Brexit. Ross had argued that NFU Scotland’s policy director told him no MP had voted to reduce animal welfare standards.
The policy director hit back, saying he was “fuming” with the comments.
Jonnie Hall said: “I remained very concerned that an honest and very straightforward answer to a question has basically turned 180 degrees to misrepresent a situation where I think people are being misled.”
After last night's vote the UK's Environment Secretary defended the Government's refusal to protect food standards in law and insisted a "prohibition" on chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef would not change.
George Eustice said the legal protection "wasn't necessary" and the Government had given assurances to the National Farmers' Union (NFU) that it would "protect and uphold our standards".
Eustice said the Tory rebels, including Ross, would not have the whip removed over the "perfectly normal" difference of opinion and for voting with "their own personal conscience".
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