Without listening to consumers, any trade deal will be doomed to fail
Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy
| Which?
If the government undermines consumer confidence at the expense of rushed negotiations and appeasing global powers, any trade deals will be doomed to fail before the ink on the agreement is dry, says Sue Davies, Head of Consumer Protection and Food Policy at Which?
Although Big Ben didn’t bong at 11pm on Brexit night, all eyes in Whitehall are now on the clock as it ticks down to the end of 2020, and the deadline to secure a trade deal with the EU.
As a result, complex debates about tariffs, quotas and standards are likely to dominate discussions in Westminster for the next year.
Today for example, I will be giving evidence to the House of Lords, where I will be discussing the future of consumer protections as we leave the EU, and how issues such as shopping rights, product safety and travel access could be impacted by our future relationship with Brussels.
Now that the UK is in the unique position of designing its policy from scratch, and is determined to strike deals with not just the EU, but multiple countries simultaneously, sharp focus is being placed on how these deals will be determined as a success.
And if the recent election taught us anything, it is surely that while these trade deals may be carved out in Whitehall, Washington DC and Brussels, it is their impact on the everyday lives of people in Whitehaven, Washington, Tyne and Wear, and Blyth Valley that really counts.
That is why it is vital that the debate does not become based solely on statistics and percentages, and focuses on the implications for those outside the Westminster bubble, as the decisions made by trade negotiators will soon filter through to shoppers on the high street, not just the balance sheets of big business.
The delicate compromises that the government will have to make over our domestic standards and laws in order to facilitate international trade could end up having significant impact on the price, range and safety of the products and services that we use every day - whether that’s a decent saving on the price of a weekly food shop, an eye-watering increase in the cost of a new car, or having to negotiate a byzantine complaints process to get your money back for a faulty product purchased abroad.
And worryingly, while the UK currently has world leading consumer rights and standards, the only public discussion seems to be focused on how likely the government is to dilute them to secure those sought-after deals, rather than strengthen them.
There is no clearer demonstration of this than with food standards. Chlorinated chicken has become the chemically-bathed totem for everything that a reduction in protections could lead to if we allow food to be sold using production methods that are currently banned in the UK.
Rather than debating the merits of various chemical washing techniques for chickens - the debate has to be firmly focused on what food standards consumers want.
We must not lose sight of the regulatory reforms the UK introduced after food crises such as BSE and horsemeat contamination.
Based on the respective estimates by the official monitoring bodies in the US and UK, the rate of people suffering from foodborne disease in the US is around 10 times higher than in Britain. We should maintain our plough to plate approach to food safety - and not move to treatments like chlorination as a desperate attempt to make up for widespread safety problems in the food production process.
It would be a grave mistake for the government to fall into this trap and ignore how strongly consumers feel about this issue.
Seven in 10 people told Which? they would be concerned about eating chicken that has been treated with chlorine, but many people feel that their views are simply going to be dismissed when the trade delegations get round the table. When it comes to trade policy, one in five believes consumers won’t be represented at all.
As members of the government’s Strategic Trade Advisory Group, that is exactly what Which? will be raising. Alongside a wide-ranging group of organisations, including the TUC, CBI and FSB we are standing up for consumers to ensure their views are heard and put to the government as it shapes its future plans.
And it’s also why we will soon be heading out around the country to seek the views of UK consumers - to find out about their understanding of what is at stake, what trade-offs might be acceptable and what new benefits they hope to get as a result of Britain striking out on its own.
Our discussions with panels of consumers up and down the length and breadth of the country will result in the most comprehensive picture yet of the priorities of the ordinary people, who will ultimately judge the success of any future trade deals.
We hope this will provide the government and the UK’s trade negotiators with valuable ammunition to take into these vital negotiations. This will be crucial to the once in a generation chance to shape Britain's future trading relationships and influence the quality of life of millions of people for decades to come.
If we get it right, we could enjoy the best rights and protections in the world, a wider range of products than ever before and more money in our pockets to boot.
If we get it wrong, we will recklessly unravel years of hard-fought progress, and potentially expose consumers to shoddy products, unsafe food and sky-high prices.
Ultimately, if the government chooses to ignore these sentiments, and undermine consumer confidence at the expense of rushed negotiations and appeasing global powers, any trade deal will be doomed to fail before the ink on the agreement is dry.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
