Ministers stay silent on pledge to ban foie gras as EU talks approach
Negotiations with Brussels over a veterinary agreement to reduce the need for border checks on agricultural products are due to start in May with the aim of boosting economic growth.
Animal rights groups said they were concerned that such a deal, involving the mutual recognition of standards, would prevent the UK government from banning the importation of foie gras from suppliers in France and elsewhere.
Before the election the environment secretary, Steve Reed, said Labour would 'ban the commercial import of foie gras, where ducks and geese are aggressively force-fed'.
Foie gras is made by a process known as gavage, in which grain is poured into a funnel that has been forced down a bird's neck. The process swells the animal's liver to many times its normal size.
Asked whether the government was still committed to a ban on importing foie gras in light of a potential veterinary agreement with the EU, a spokesperson for the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs said: 'We won't be commenting on this one.'
Abigail Penny, the executive director of Animal Equality UK, said: 'Every year, millions of terrified ducks and geese endure unbearable suffering for foie gras, force-fed until their livers swell to the size of a small football.
'Steve Reed MP has personally condemned this cruelty, promising an end to UK imports of this abhorrent product, yet progress has been disappointingly slow.
'Any action that risks or restricts an outright ban on foie gras imports would fly in the face of the Labour party's electoral promise and insult the animal-loving people across the UK. We expect this commitment to be upheld.'
Mandy Carter, the co-executive director of Animal Policy International, a charity focused on trade and animal welfare policy, said a U-turn by the government would be a 'betrayal'.
She said: 'Labour has already pledged to ban foie gras imports – a promise that could be impossible to keep under a strict EU veterinary agreement. Without specific protections in the agreement, we risk undoing decades of progress on animal welfare.
'Foie gras imports betray British values of compassion. It's simple - we should not be importing products that don't meet UK values or our production standards.'
Sign up to Headlines UK
Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning
after newsletter promotion
Production of foie gras has been banned in the UK since 2006, but about 180 tonnes of the delicacy are imported from Europe each year.
The Conservative government had planned to use its 'Brexit freedoms' to bring an end to the trade. An outright ban had been impossible under EU single-market rules.
The proposal was shelved during the brief premiership of Liz Truss in the face of opposition from cabinet ministers, including Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Sam Lowe, a leading European trade expert at the Flint Global consultancy, said he was never convinced the government would follow through on its proposed ban.
He said any prohibition today would probably face an objection from France at the World Trade Organisation, and a veterinary agreement would complicate matters.
'I think it would probably be an issue for a veterinary agreement in that while you could obviously negotiate a carve-out, the French would probably kick off. But I am not convinced the government would ban it anyway.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's rewilding plans risk surge in wildfires
Labour's rewilding plans risk sparking a surge in wildfires across Britain, gamekeepers have warned. The Government is proposing to ban winter burning – a traditional upland management technique that reduces the amount of fuel for potential fires – from more than half of all peatland in England. It is claimed the changes will help to 're-wet' Britain's peat bogs, reduce the risk of wildfires and cut carbon emissions. Environmentalists want to preserve peat bogs because they soak up vasts quantities of carbon. But landowners and gamekeepers have warned that, far from protecting the environment, the burning restrictions will instead leave Britain's moors and heaths at the mercy of wildfires that will be 'too large to fight'. Winter burns create firebreaks in upland areas by forming strips where there is less flammable foliage, thereby limiting the speed at which wildfires can spread. But in 2021, the burns were banned from areas of 'deep peat' – where it extends for 40cm or deeper – in conservation areas, totalling 222,000 hectares of land. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is now consulting on plans to extend the burning restrictions to 368,000 hectares of peat by lowering the threshold for 'deep peat' to 30cm. The department argues that wetter peat will reduce the chance of wildfires. But gamekeepers have warned the changes would leave swathes of the countryside vulnerable. Richard Bailey, a gamekeeper and co-ordinator of the Peak District Moorland Group, told The Telegraph the plans risked turning upland areas into a 'massive tinderbox'. Andrew Gilruth, chief executive of the Moorland Association, said: 'This is our worst ever year for wildfires. Britain is burning because of the religion of rewilding. 'It is obvious to everyone bar Natural England that, with climate change making vegetation tinder-dry, increasing this fuel load through rewilding is a really stupid idea. It make for bigger, more intense blazes which can move at frightening speed.' 'I think the whole thing is very concerning – not just from a loss-of-habitat point of view, but also putting firefighters and land managers in real danger from the inevitable wildfires. 'The whole thing is becoming a massive tinderbox and a bomb that is going off. At the moment, re-wetting is increasing the fuel level on the moors and that is a real concern. Prescribed burning will not stop wildfires, but it reduces the length of flames and allows fires to be contained quicker.' Other proposed changes would remove an exemption to the restrictions that allowed burns to continue on land 'inaccessible' to mowing and cutting equipment, either because it was too steep or too rocky. Proposals reveal 'staggering lack of knowledge' Defra said in its consultation that burns should be a 'last resort', despite G7 leaders having backed 'controlled burning' as a means of preventing wildfires in June. Donald Trump also issued an executive order that month reducing restrictions on 'prescribed fires' for 'common-sense wildfire prevention'. Adrian Blackmore, the director of shooting at the Countryside Alliance, said Defra's plans to restrict burns – which remove the top layer of heather without damaging the roots or peat underneath – were 'staggering'. 'They are showing a staggering lack of understanding or knowledge,' he said. 'Burns reduce the fire load, encourage young growth for the birds to eat and encourage the growth of sphagnum moss, which is the peat-forming moss. 'So if you don't remove the canopy, you can't encourage sphagnum moss, because it's not going to grow underneath it. And sphagnum moss is the be-all and end-all, making moors wetter.' In recent years, there has been a series of large wildfires in upland areas where winter burns were restricted – including the Saddleworth Moor blaze in 2018, where wildfires had been limited to once every two decades. This summer, large wildfires have broken out on Langdale Moor, in North Yorkshire, and Marsden Moor, in West Yorkshire. Scotland's largest ever wildfires have also taken place in the Cairngorms. Gamekeepers in Scotland have warned that they will no longer help to put out moorland wildfires if restrictions on peat burns are introduced. From January next year, gamekeepers would have to measure the depth of the peat before applying for licences to conduct 'muirburns'. Craig Hepburn, a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association's youth committee, said: 'As people, it goes against the grain for us to turn our backs on anyone but, if Government is going to tie us in knots when we are trying to help, why should folk keep putting their lives at risk?' A spokesman for Defra said: 'Our peatlands are home to Britain's most precious wildlife, while also storing carbon and reducing flooding risk. 'With 13 per cent of the world's blanket bog in the UK, we've consulted on ways to ensure these rare habitats are better protected. We will set out our response in due course.' John Clarke, of the National Gamekeepers' Association, said the Defra plans would 'spell disaster'. 'Many areas of the uplands are inaccessible by tractors and other vehicles, meaning that cutting or mowing of vegetation is nigh-on impossible, and controlled burning is the only option,' he said. 'This summer we have experienced a large number of wildfires up and down the country; this year so far has in fact seen the most wildfires on record. These wildfires come at a huge cost not only to our ground nesting red listed birds, but also to the public purse. 'The notion of increasing the restrictions on where burning can take place will spell disaster and will only increase incidents of wildfire in the future.'
Telegraph
16 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The tax traps Reeves must fix to grow the economy
It is no secret that Rachel Reeves is strapped for cash. Against a backdrop of rising inflation and weak growth, the Chancellor is staring down a black hole that some predict could be as high as £50bn. Worse still, some efforts to save money have already been killed off by Labour backbenchers, while bond market vigilantes have driven up Britain's borrowing costs to their highest level since the 1990s. That is without even taking into account the impact of Reeves's Budget tax raid last year, which has crushed business confidence and dampened investment. All of which means that the Chancellor is now scrambling for reforms that will boost the economy at minimal cost. Here are some of her options. Clean up the income tax trap The top rate of income tax is supposed to be 45pc, but for those earning between £100,000 and just over £125,000, it is in effect 60pc. That is because workers in this bracket lose the tax-free allowance, which applies to the first £12,570 of pay for workers on lower incomes. As a result, it can appear rather unattractive to earn more if most of this extra income will be taken by the taxman. 'Where we have these kinks in the income tax schedule, those will tend to act as a disincentive to people to work more – I might not want to take that promotion, or I might want to go four days a week,' says Isaac Delestre, at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Scrapping this baffling tax quirk would help ease the pain. Smooth out benefits Losing child benefit can see families' effective tax rate rise to almost 60pc. This applies when one parent in a three-child household earns between £60,000 and £80,000. Believe it or not, that is an improvement on the old situation. Before Conservative reforms, a family with three children faced a tax rate of more than 70pc. Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor at the time, called the system 'confusing and unfair'. Following changes introduced by the Tories, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) calculated reforms would encourage parents to work more hours, amounting to the equivalent of an extra 10,000 full-time jobs. However, perhaps the most egregious tax trap applies to adults with young children. The Government has ramped up subsidies for childcare in recent years to try to get more parents back to work. Yet for a cohort of highly productive workers, the way the system operates can be an enormous disincentive to seek out a promotion or put in extra hours. That is because the support schemes are withdrawn entirely once one parent's taxable income rises above £100,000. It means an extra penny of earnings can cost a family with two young children £14,500 in disposable income, according to the IFS. The think tank estimates that their disposable income – after tax and childcare – will not recover to its previous level until the parent earns £134,500. These parents have an enormous incentive to cut their taxable income, whether by pouring money into their pension to reduce their taxable income or by cutting the number of days they work each week. Turning the cliff edge into a smooth slope might cost the Treasury money, but would no doubt ease families' worries. Ramp up VAT Companies face similar cliff edges. Small businesses have to register for VAT when their turnover hits £90,000. That creates a huge incentive to stay below that threshold. Businesses and sole traders often stop earning once they edge closer to the limit as they seek to avoid the threat of introducing a 20pc tax on sales. Whether that means working only four days a week or closing for a month to keep takings down, it undermines growth in their business and the wider economy. The Conservatives cited this 'bunching' as a reason to raise the threshold from £85,000, but that just shifted the problem instead of abolishing it. Slashing the threshold would be a blow to small businesses and their customers, but might encourage more growth in the long term by removing it as a barrier altogether. That was the argument of the Resolution Foundation when it was run by Torsten Bell, now a Treasury minister. The think tank previously called the high threshold 'a tax on growth', claiming that: 'The best outcome would be lowering it to the point where almost no business owner would consider the option of deliberately staying below that level of turnover.' Cutting it to £30,000 could raise £1.5bn for Reeves. Cut stamp duty To say that reform of property tax is overdue is an understatement. The IFS has described council tax, which is still based on valuations from 1991, as 'out of date, regressive and distortionary'. The think tank has also branded stamp duty one of Britain's most hated taxes because it penalises people for moving. Back in 1988, a typical homeowner moved house every nine years, according to property website Zoopla. In the first six months of 2022, the gap was 21 years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has previously urged the UK to move away from 'transaction taxes which constrain housing and labour mobility'. Instead of a property sales tax, the Fund suggested adopting a new annual levy based on land or property values – a system some argue this would be fairer. After all, the average London house price is now more than seven times what it was in 1991, compared with a four-fold increase in the North East, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the same time, the distribution of central government funding to local authorities is still based on property values in 1991. This effectively means councils in Newcastle must now levy more tax on a property worth £250,000 than in Kensington and Chelsea to deliver essentially the same on valuations. However, as the think tank points out, any major revaluation would produce winners and losers. Back in 2020, the IFS suggested that a simple revaluation that reflected relative increases in property values would hit homeowners primarily in London and the South East. Back then, it said residents in Hackney and Wandsworth could see increases in their bills of up to 45pc, while people living in Fylde near Blackpool could see a 15pc reduction. A more radical reform that linked bills proportionally to a property's value could see bills in Stoke-on-Trent slashed in half. But it would also see bills quadruple in Kensington and almost double in parts of Surrey. There was a reason that Margaret Thatcher backed away from a poll tax. ... and planning red tape It is not just moving house that matters. Building them would boost the economy too. That is why bats and newts are high up on Reeves's hit list. The Chancellor has repeatedly grumbled about the many obstacles to getting things built in Britain, telling the House of Lords economic affairs committee last month that she cares 'more about getting a young family on the housing ladder than I do about protecting some snails'. She has a point. In a now infamous example, the chairman of the HS2 rail line admitted it was spending £100m on a shield to protect bats in ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire. Sir John Thompson said this was just one example of 8,276 'consents' required from public bodies, and expressed frustration at red tape across the UK. Reeves also knows there is a big prize on offer if she manages to reduce bureaucracy. The OBR said Labour's planning reforms were already expected to drive an increase in housebuilding of 170,000 homes until the end of the decade, which would in turn increase Britain's medium-term growth prospects by 0.2pc. Reeves has since ordered officials in the Treasury to go further. Prepare for more red tape to be slashed.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon: How I ruined her referendum campaign
As we donate well-thumbed copies to the charity shop (having first erased any sarky notes in the margins), I think we can agree it's been fun delving into the past, but let's get back to the here and now. Except not everyone is ready to retire from the fray just yet. There was always a danger that Ms Sturgeon's memoirs would bring grievances to the surface again. The combative personality of the author and the turbulent times she was writing about, particularly the referendum, made that inevitable. Even so, some of the reaction has been fairly shocking in its intensity. We are now 11 years on, but if you look on social media or any comment forum it is summer 2014 all over again, and not in a good way. Was that really us? Did we say that, do that, think that? And if it was as bad as it looks, should Scotland follow the example of Ms Sturgeon and seek counselling? BTW, I thought it a poor take on her fellow citizens when she revealed her initial reluctance to ask for help. 'I'm from the West of Scotland,' she told the Sunday Times. 'We don't do things like that! Working-class west of Scotland, Ayrshire, my God, I would never have.' Actually, Nicola, I think you'll find times have changed and here in the west of Scotland we are hoaching with therapists. Counselling is now seen as part of taking care of yourself, like going to the gym. As any therapist will tell you, the first step in tackling any problem is acknowledging you have one. JK Rowling - you knew she'd turn up at some point - had a few things to say on the referendum and other matters in her review of Frankly. In her opinion, both Ms Sturgeon and Alex Salmond made great play of the idea that Scotland produced 'a kinder, better type of nationalist'. 'Oddly,' she added, 'this message didn't resonate too well with No voters who were being threatened with violence, told to **** off out of Scotland, quizzed on the amount of Scottish blood that ran in their veins, accused of treachery and treason …' There is more, but you get the idea. Contrast this with Ms Sturgeon's breezy assessment of the campaign as 'in the main, positive and good-natured'. How can two such opinions meet in the middle? Even if they could, there is plenty of beef between those two to keep them fighting till both receive birthday telegrams from the Palace. Speaking of reactions, I had an odd, Zelig-like experience while reading Frankly. You might say I was 'triggered'. Whatever the term, I was left with a face redder than one of the jackets Ms Sturgeon swears by when she needs a confidence boost. There I was, innocently reading the section on the referendum when the author mentioned a programme I had worked on and what an awful time she had on it. Cue the beamer and a cold sweat. Oh no, I thought, what was she about to say? She acknowledged her mood that day wasn't great, and it was made worse by patchy briefings on key issues such as the currency and EU membership. Anyway, she rocked up to the Question Time-style debate and everything went downhill from there. 'The audience's scepticism quickly became obvious,' she wrote. As she left the BBC that night, something was bothering her, a worry that turned into 'a significant problem' as the campaign went on. 'There was a palpable imbalance in how the British media, the BBC in particular, covered the referendum.' So there you are, it was my fault. Like Eve in Eden, the rot started with me and the rest of the team. I had ruined her night, and her referendum. But no, hang on, here's Ms Sturgeon again in another of her short-lived changes of heart. 'I am not claiming that journalists were biased,' she says, before doing precisely that. 'In a sign of what was to come,' she concluded, 'all of the set-piece audience questions in that BBC debate were, from the perspective of independence, loaded and pejorative.' If she had known the lengths to which the programme had gone to ensure balance she might have thought differently. Every person in that audience had been quizzed and quizzed again to establish their position, if they had one, so that the audience could fairly represent Scottish public opinion. Most importantly, the questions were written by audience members. Not framed, not edited, all their own doing. The lesson that Ms Sturgeon should have taken away was that people were genuinely concerned about the currency, EU membership and other issues. As becomes clear elsewhere in the memoir, they were right to be sceptical. According to Ms Sturgeon, Alex Salmond had only read 'bits' of the White Paper before it was published, a claim his supporters have rubbished. This is the same White Paper, it should be said, that caused her to have a panic attack. The stakes were high, of course they were. People were being asked to decide the future of their country. They wanted to know if their families and homes and pensions would be safe. The questions were not 'loaded and pejorative', they were direct and sincere. As it turned out, Ms Surgeon wasn't the only one who was unhappy after the programme. All the politicians had a moan about being given a hard time. I took that as a good thing. Others may disagree. That's the point. Everyone had their own experience of the referendum. For some it was exciting, the time of their lives, but that was not the case for everyone. Do we need to talk about that? Do we want to? Let's park it till the paperback comes out. That's one position we can all get behind.
