'My exports halved after Brexit - I'm happy with new EU deal'
A Devon food producer has said the new UK-EU deal will reduce paperwork and the risks associated with exporting goods to the continent. It comes after the UK and the EU reached a new agreement setting out post-Brexit relations on areas including fishing rights, trade and defence.Newton Abbot's Westaway Sausages boss, Charles Baughan, said his export business halved after Brexit, with a typical consignment requiring 14 pages of paperwork and 49 signatures. He said: "Everything's easier because it's not just easier for me, if you can think about the person in Malta who's importing it, who has a truck held up in Calais, that's a nightmare."
"He's paying for the driver and so on and so forth, and really, it's going to be hugely helpful for them as well," he added.
The new rules on exports
The new deal has meant EU boats will have continued access to UK waters until 2038. In return for extending current fishing rules, the UK has secured a deal to reduce checks on food exports to the EU.This will also see the vast majority of routine border checks on animal and plant shipments to and from the EU dropped.Food producers, like Mr Baughan, will be able to sell raw burgers and sausages back into the EU for the first time since Brexit - which is thanks to the new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement.Under the deal, the UK will be expected to follow EU rules, which are overseen by the European Court of Justice. The UK maintains the right to break away if it keeps similar standards and avoids harming EU trade.UK food exports to the EU have fallen, – with volumes in 2024 down 34% compared with 2019 – and the industry blames this partly on the added red tape.But the deal comes with conditions. The UK will need to follow future EU food standards – and accept that the European Court of Justice will have the final say in any disputes in this area.The UK will be also required to make a financial contribution. However is it currently unknown how much the payment would be and when it would be required.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
33 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Modest fashion' headed for mainstream despite political hostility, say experts
Fashion influenced by Islam and other religions is expected to become 'mainstream' globally, in spite of politicians singling out the burqa and the hijab, as the rise of 'modest fashion' is powered by influencers, luxury brands and big tech. The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has said employers should be able to ban staff from wearing face coverings, before adding that she was not in favour of a government ban. Her remarks came days after the Reform MP Sarah Pochin asked the prime minister, Keir Starmer, if he would ban the burqa, a veil which covers the face and body, following France's lead. Clothing worn by some Muslim women has become a lightning rod for arguments about integration, personal liberty, women's rights and Islamophobia on both sides of the Channel. A French ban on children under 15 wearing the hijab was proposed last month, and in 2023, France banned girls in state schools from wearing the abaya, the loose-fitting robe worn by some Muslim women. Nonetheless, recent research by Bath Spa University found that 'persistent and growing demand' for modest fashion internationally – typified by looser styles which cover the limbs with a high neckline – was driven by Muslim consumers and Instagram users, with Amazon and Farfetch emerging as market leaders at the affordable and luxury ends of the market respectively. Bournemouth University's Dr Samreen Ashraf, who has pioneered UK research into modest fashion, said its growth was also driven by women's desire to avoid objectification. She said the market remained underserved, with issues around clear labelling from big brands and affordability with smaller suppliers. 'It's not just women with strong religious beliefs,' she added. Women who have faced body shaming or body dysmorphia, who don't have any belief, turn towards modest fashion's more flowing designs. 'Reports have suggested growth of the European modest clothing market from €56.8bn to €72.5bn between 2021 and 2025 – 17.2% of that is UK, of which 6.5% identify themselves as Muslim. That has been one of the reasons why there's been an upward turn. 'Also, with social media, people are feeling: 'I can fully express my religious or cultural identity.'. Especially when the likes of M&S and Asos and Uniqlo and H&M are also offering modest clothing. 'It's not just one religion however, but all faiths, and also empowerment: that if I don't want to reveal my body to others, why should I? Blunt statements from people in power don't serve any good purpose to women. Individual liberty, respect and tolerance are British values.' Bath Spa University's 2025 research found that leading brands' production of hijab and Ramadan lines showed 'the evolution of modest fashion into a mainstream fashion subculture'. Significantly, Muslim influencers on TikTok, many of whom focus on modest fashion, exceeded 125m views in 2023, says the growth strategy research firm DinarStandard, which projects that 30% of the world's 15- to 29-year-olds will be Muslim by 2030. The purchasing power of Muslim shoppers – including from wealthy Gulf states – is credited with leading luxury brands to enter the space, joining independent Muslim retailers and female entrepreneurs worldwide. The aesthetic overlaps with 'quiet luxury' and 'old money' styles, with 'longer hemlines' in common, according to Vogue Arabia. A 2023, Bournemouth University study, led by Ashraf, found 'increasing stigma … associated with Islam post 9/11' had led Muslims to adopt a stronger sense of identity including through 'choosing modest clothing items'. After Pochin's comments, Muslim Women's Network said women who wore the burqa, or other religious dress, were 'simply exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief', while the Muslim Council of Britain said 'lazy tropes' were being used to malign a 'proudly British' community.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
British firms are being stifled by excessive regulation and bureaucracy
The all-party House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee which I chair has just completed a year-long inquiry into how effective the regulators are at fulfilling their duties to boost competitiveness and growth. It's a sad tale of a deeply entrenched culture of risk aversion, of disproportionately high costs of compliance, and of a complex regulatory landscape driven by expansion and overlap in the regulators' remits and by the volume and scope of regulatory activity. There is no doubt that operational inefficiencies and suffocating bureaucracy are damaging growth and place the UK at a competitive international disadvantage. Despite the regulators' growth mandate, the firms which gave evidence to the year-long inquiry say the system is slow and inflexible. Firms complain of being buried under regulatory paperwork and of facing a never-ending barrage of information requests from both the FCA and PRA. The CEO of Nationwide told the inquiry she received 4,519 pieces of direct correspondence in 12 months. Santander responded to more than 300 regulatory requests and managed 400 regular regulatory reports equating to over 2,500 submissions a year. One firm told us it employed 78 compliance officers for its UK operations compared with a total of 73 to cover the other 40 countries it operated in. We were dismayed by the evidence we received which highlighted long-standing issues that limit investment and the ability of financial firms to grow, innovate and compete. The lack of proportionality in the regulators' approach was evident in the FCA's failure to distinguish between wholesale and retail markets and the PRAs approach to capital requirements. The vagueness surrounding the Consumer Duty and the Financial Ombudsman's evolution into a quasi-regulator has created uncertainty and a worrying perception of a regulatory penalty for investment in UK businesses. It is essential for the FCA and FOS to be aligned on redress and interpretation. The FCA and the PRA alone employ around 6,500 staff at a cost of £1.1 billion. This results in an ever-rolling stream of consultation documents, regulatory changes and compliance advice which firms are expected to follow, communicated sometimes informally through speeches by senior regulators and letters to CEOs. My committee receives notice of these every week and it is frankly overwhelming. The regulators lack clear focus and appear to be still haunted by the 2008 financial crisis. This leads to excessive caution, sluggish approvals, high compliance costs and endless red tape. There is an urgent need for the FCA and PRA senior leadership to drive cultural change. This change should emphasise a more tailored and proportional approach to the risks posed by regulated firms, a culture of continual operational improvement and innovation, and a more transparent and trusting relationship with the businesses they regulate. An approach is needed which embraces technology and streamlines compliance for fintech and AI-driven firms. The skills and quality of staff are vitally important and that means addressing remuneration. A revolving door sees regulators losing some of their most talented people, recruited to advise the companies they once regulated at substantially higher salaries. We were surprised by the difference in candour between the evidence we received from the industry in public and the views expressed to us privately. We were obliged to take evidence in private in order to get many firms to share their concerns. At one meeting I attended, a CEO read out his brief from his compliance department which said that if Lord Forsyth invited him to give evidence to his committee under no circumstances should he agree to do so. This is not a healthy situation and there needs to be a much more open and trusting relationship between the regulators and the firms they regulate. In a competitive market, speed matters. Yet firms say UK regulators are lagging behind international rivals when it comes to authorising new products, people and operations. While official stats suggest improvements, they take too long and many say those numbers are misleading: they exclude the time regulators 'stop the clock' to request more data. If launching a new fintech product takes six months longer in London than in Singapore, investors and innovators will simply go elsewhere. We heard many positive reports of the success of the concierge approach of the Singapore regulator, which involved helping firms to grow and comply with regulatory provisions. Our regulators have much to learn from this approach. The Chancellor has placed a great deal of faith in the regulators stimulating economic growth. Our report makes one thing clear: the regulators can't do this alone. The Government must step up. That means clearer economic goals, better use of statutory guidance and more robust performance tracking. Right now, metrics are focused on operational inputs, not outcomes. Without stronger leadership from HM Treasury and without aligning regulators, industry and Parliament, the growth and competitiveness objectives will be little more than political window dressing.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned says Welsh MP
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned, an MP has fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and Jones, Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to Parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) accused Jones of being the "wardrobe police", adding the ban would be "unenforceable and unworkable" and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US. Jones said: "Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane."If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense."The MP added: "Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry."Faux fur could do the job just as well."Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presented a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners. "There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms," she said. "Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely."The British Fashion Council attended one of the campaign group's events in Parliament to support the proposed bill, she said. Ms Badiani-Hamment said she had noticed the fashion industry changing, adding there were "very few designers left in the country handling fur". "It's just not desirable."But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, said demand for vintage fur was growing."We have queues going out the door in the winter," she said. "Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur. "I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity."Furriers in the UK sell a variety of fur that has been imported from other countries. The import or export of cat and dog fur, and products containing their fur, is banned. There is also a ban on selling cat and dog fur in the UK new bill calls for a ban on all new fur being imported or sold in the UK and would not apply to vintage Kaplan said all the coats and jackets in their store were from the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. The shop has a rigorous process when acquiring fur products to ensure that what they are selling is vintage, not new fur, she added. Ms Kaplan also said vintage fur was sustainable, adding: "If it were to be discarded, it would go back into the earth, everything - all the fibres and the fur is natural."I don't support the making of new furs, I don't support the farming and I don't support the sale of it, but I can get behind a piece that was already made with the intention of being worn so it can carry on being worn."In a statement, the BFTA warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs."Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws," it said."Fur is popular as evidenced by the number of young people choosing to wear it who are rejecting oil-based fast fashions often made in sweatshop conditions."MPs like Ruth Jones should respect that others are happy to wear high-welfare fur, rather than acting like the wardrobe police."The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in Parliament on 4 July. Meanwhile, the UK government said it was building a "clear evidence base to inform future action", with an updated animal welfare strategy due to be published later this year.
