Consultation outcome

Sugar ATQ: summary of responses

Updated 16 December 2020

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1) The UK left the European Union on 31 January 2020 and is developing its independent trade policy for the first time in nearly 50 years. The UK has always been a champion of free trade and firm believer in the vital role trade plays in boosting wealth and lifting billions of people out of poverty. The UK is shaping its own trade policy to deliver prosperity for the whole of the UK.

2) The UK Global Tariff (UKGT) schedule will apply to goods imported into the UK from 1 January 2021, at the end of the transition period, unless an exception such as a preferential arrangement or tariff suspension applies. For example, it will not apply to goods coming from developing countries that benefit under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), or to goods originating from countries with which the UK has negotiated a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The Northern Ireland / Ireland Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement provides for certain specific arrangements as regards Northern Ireland.

3) As part of the new UK Global Tariff (UKGT) announced on the 19 May 2020, the government proposed an autonomous tariff rate quota (ATQ) to allow for a set volume of raw cane sugar to enter the UK tariff free, in an effort to balance support for UK producers, processers and UK consumers whilst maintaining preferential trade with developing countries.

4) Autonomous Tariff Rate Quotas (ATQs) allow imports up to a given quantity of a good to enter the UK at a lower or zero tariff for a specified period of time. Once imports exceed this given quantity, the UKGT rate will apply. ATQs are applied in line with the MFN principle as part of the UK’s applied tariff regime.

5) This ATQ was announced with a quota of 260,000 tonnes of raw cane sugar to apply from 1 January 2021 as part of the UKGT. The quota would apply for 12 months, with an in-quota rate of 0% and the volume will reset each year on the 1 January. Once the quota threshold is met, the out of quota tariff rate, the UKGT MFN rate of £28.00/100kg, would apply.
6) The government made clear at the time that this proposal would be reviewed. In order to support this review, the government launched a public consultation on the future of this ATQ.

7) The government conducted a 3-week public consultation to help inform this review from 14 September to 5 October 2020. This document provides an overview of the responses received from the public consultation. The government’s response to the public consultation, including its strategic approach and the decision made as a result of the responses received through the public consultation, has been published separately alongside this document.

1.2 Policy objectives

8) In setting the ATQ rate the government has sought to uphold the principles set out in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, namely the:

• interests of consumers in the United Kingdom
• interests of producers in the United Kingdom of the goods concerned
• desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade of the United Kingdom
• desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity in the United Kingdom
• extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition

9) The government also sought to balance strategic trade objectives, such as the delivery of the UK’s trade ambitions and FTA trade agenda, whilst maintaining the government’s commitment to developing countries to reduce poverty through trade.

1.3 What we asked

10) This consultation aimed to deliver on the government’s commitment to review and take into account the views of all sectors of society and international stakeholders; including the general public, all UK nations and regions, businesses, civil society groups, consumers, associations and any other interested individuals or organisations.

11) It was launched at 10:00 on 14 September 2020 and was open to submissions for three weeks. It closed at 23:59 on 5 October 2020.

12) The consultation questionnaire was divided into six sections: Privacy and Confidentiality, Domestic Sugar Production, Importing Sugar into the UK, Exporting Sugar into the UK, Questions on Sugar ATQs and Stakeholder Information.

13) Within the Questions on Sugar ATQs section, respondents were asked to provide feedback on the government’s proposals for an ATQ on raw cane sugar of 260,000 tonnes. They were given the opportunity to comment on the impacts of an ATQ in various scenarios and suggest different amounts or alternatives for the ATQ along with their own justification. They were also asked to provide feedback on the government’s preliminary assessment that the proposed ATQ would not have a material impact on price incentives for UK sugar beet processors, as set out in the information pack which was published alongside the consultation. In addition, all respondents were also provided with the opportunity to submit additional comments relating to their response.

14) A comprehensive list of all the questions asked as a part of this public consultation is available in Annex A.

1.4 This report

15) This report provides a summary of the responses received throughout the public consultation on the raw cane sugar ATQ. The views provided in these responses have been carefully considered and analysed. The responses gathered have informed the development of government’s approach to setting the raw cane sugar ATQ.

16) The decisions made as a result of this consultation have been published alongside our announcement of the raw cane sugar ATQ. This report, therefore, does not set out government policy with respect to future trade policy, but provides a summary of the responses received.

17) A number of respondents raised points which fell outside the scope of this consultation. However, they have still been included in the statistical analysis where appropriate.

18) It is important to note that respondents were not required to answer every question that was posed in the consultation response form, in order to proceed further with the response. As such, the number of responses for each question does not always equal the total number of consultation submissions. The data provided below only reflects the number of responses for each individual question, not in relation to the total number of consultation submissions. In other words, non-answers to questions were not included in the data.

19) Additionally, any percentages (%) present in this document have been rounded to the nearest 1% where appropriate, for analytical convenience. As a result, some percentage totals may not add up to 100%.

20) This document does not contain a list of the respondents or contain any personal or organisational details of respondents. Views have been summarised in the following sections of this report but are not attributable to any individual respondent or business. The figures in this document refer to those who responded to the consultation and all responses are considered equally in the summary results to each question.

21) The government does not intend to publish any individual consultation responses it received, to ensure confidentiality. Organisations may publish their own responses independently.

2. Consultation submissions

2.1 Overview of the responses

22) As a result of this consultation the government has received 84 responses, 67 of which were submitted via the consultation response form and 17 by email with their views.

Table 1: Breakdown of consultation responses received

Response type	Number received
Consultation response form	67
Email submissions	17
Total number of responses	84

2.2 Summary of respondent groups

23) The public consultation was launched on GOV.UK. Respondents to the public consultation were self-categorised into the following five groups:

• an individual – Responding with personal views rather than as an official representative of a business / business association / other organisation
• non-governmental organisation – In an official capacity as the representative of a non-governmental organisation / academic institution / other organisation
• public sector body – In an official capacity as a representative of a devolved administration / local government organisation / public service provider / other public sector body in the UK or elsewhere / other international government
• business – In an official capacity with the views of an individual business
• business association – In an official capacity representing the views of a business organisation

24) It should be noted that a large proportion of the total responses were from businesses (60). Each individual submission from a respondent is treated equally in the figures presented throughout this document.

Table 2: Total number of public consultation responses per group

Respondent group	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
Individual	5	6%
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)	4	5%
Public sector body	2	2%
Business	60	71%
Business association	8	10%
Other/left blank	5	6%
Total number of responses	84	100%

25) Respondents were also asked about how they interacted with the UK sugar market by indicating if they produced sugar domestically, imported sugar into the UK or exported sugar into the UK. Respondents were allowed to select as many of these options as were applicable. As such the total number of responses in Table 3 is not reflective of the number of respondents who interacted with these questions, as an individual responded could have identified with each possible option, thereby being counted 3 times.

26) It is also important to note that within the category ‘Produces sugar domestically’, we have included the domestic growing of sugar beet, along with the production and/or refining of the sugar itself.

Table 3: Summary of public consultation responses by type of interaction with the UK sugar market

Type of respondent	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
Produces sugar domestically	42	68%
Imports sugar into the UK	6	10%
Exports sugar into the UK	14	23%
Total number of responses	62	101%

27) Respondents who produce sugar domestically were also asked to identify the type of sugar they produced, which is detailed in Table 4 below. All 42 respondents who identified themselves as producing sugar in the UK answered this question, with the majority (88%) specifying sugar beet.

Table 4: Breakdown of respondents that produce sugar domestically

Type of production	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
Sugar beet	37	88%
Raw cane	1	2%
No additional details	4	10%
Total number of responses	42	100%

28) Respondents who import sugar into the UK were asked to identify which trade arrangements they used for these imports, which is detailed in Table 5 below. All 6 respondents who import sugar into the UK answered this question. It is important to note that respondents could select multiple answers for this question.

Table 5: Breakdown of respondents that import sugar into the UK

Method of importing	Number of responses
FTAs – including the EU	6
Generalised Scheme of Preferences (including Everything but Arms)	2

29) Respondents who export sugar into the UK were also asked for which trade arrangements they used, which is detailed in Table 6 below. Only 10 out of 14 respondents who export sugar into the UK answered this question. It is important to note that respondents could select multiple answers for this question.

Table 6: Breakdown of respondents that export sugar into the UK

Method of exporting	Number of responses
FTAs – including the EU	8
Generalised Scheme of Preferences (including Everything But Arms)	5

3. Responses to consultation

30) This section outlines an aggregated overview of how respondents answered each consultation question regarding the ATQ. For each question on the proposal, a tick box option was provided to select either: agree, disagree, don’t know or prefer not to say, as well as a free text box to justify the answer.

3.1 General sentiment on the ATQ

Consultation question: Are you in favour of an ATQ on sugar? Please explain your answer and provide any further comments and evidence to support this view.

31) All 84 consultation respondents answered this question, with the majority indicating that they were not in favour of an ATQ on raw cane sugar (79%), followed by those in favour (14%), don’t know (5%) and prefer not to say (2%).

32) Among respondents who were in favour of an ATQ, a common reason offered was that it would provide parity between sugar beet and sugar cane in the UK market and improve competition which they argue is currently distorted. Further reasons given were that it would provide greater access to the world’s sugar market to improve consumer choice and offer a greater variety of supply of sugar for the UK’s food security. The possibility of future investment and business creation in the raw cane sugar refining industry was also mentioned.

33) Respondents who were not in favour of an ATQ said that the ATQ would unbalance the playing field in the UK sugar market and lead to market distortion, impacting the viability of sugar beet for UK farmers, which is important for crop rotation. Further reasons cited were that there is already enough sugar supply to sustain demand in the UK, and that the ATQ would lead to lower standard products entering the UK market and sugar beet farmers being undercut. Other concerns expressed were that it would lead to business being taken away from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries who currently have preferential access to the UK market to export raw cane sugar.

Figure 1: Summary of public consultation responses in favour or against an ATQ on raw cane sugar

Responses	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
In favour	12	14%
Against	66	79%
Don’t know	4	5%
Prefer not to say	2	2%
Total	84	100%

3.2 Suggestions on the ATQ volume

Consultation question: Please state the preferred ATQ volume you are proposing. Please explain the impact your preferred volume would have on you.

34) 46 of the consultation respondents answered this question, with the majority (85%) answering that they would prefer the ATQ to be lower. It is important to note that all of these respondents requested the ATQ amount to be 0 tonnes, i.e. no ATQ at all. These respondents stated that the impact of this preferred amount would be higher prices for sugar beet which would be beneficial for UK farmers, in addition to protecting them from what was argued to be unfair competition. Further comments given were that it would preserve the preferential access that ACP and least developed countries currently have and ensure high standards of sugar.

35) Among those (13%) who wanted the ATQ to be higher, various figures were proposed, such as 300,000, 400,000 and 710,000 tonnes. These respondents stated that these preferred amounts would ensure the availability of supply and consumer affordability, encourage competition and would also enable sourcing raw cane sugar of the highest environmental standard, as many of these sources currently have high tariffs imposed on them. Further comments provided were that it would allow for more investment into the raw sugar cane refining industry.

Figure 2: Summary of public consultation responses in favour of the ATQ being higher/lower/the same

Responses	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
Higher amount	6	13%
Lower amount	39	85%
Same amount	1	2%
Total	46	100%

3.3 Impacts of potential ATQ volumes

Consultation question: What would the impact on you be if an ATQ were established for raw cane sugar at a) a lower amount that 260,000 tonnes and b) a higher amount than 260,000 tonnes and c) no ATQ at all?

36) Overall, this question was not consistently answered by consultation respondents, with 20 answering the impact of a), 25 answering the impact of b) and 19 answering the impact of c). It is important to note that these are not all individual respondents, as all respondents could provide an answer for a), b) and c).

37) Of respondents who wanted a higher ATQ, the suggested impacts cited were:

• Higher ATQ: It would help to signal to the UK raw cane sugar refining industry that they can invest more into their work, will improve productivity through more competition in the market, would improve the supply chain methods of raw sugar and would help the industry to source the highest quality cane sugar which currently has high tariffs imposed. It would ensure availability of supply and keep consumer costs down.
• Lower ATQ: It would not be enough to help the UK sugar cane industry to be profitable and would harm the industry through increased costs. It would harm local industry and jobs in poorer areas of London in particular. It would continue to perpetuate the current sugar market in the UK which is not competitive and harmful for customers.
• No ATQ: The consensus among respondents was that the impacts would be the same as a lower ATQ but to a greater extent.

38) Of respondents who wanted a lower ATQ, the suggested impacts cited were:

• Higher ATQ: It would prejudice the interests of UK sugar beet industry while helping the raw cane sugar refinery industry, distorting the market and harming the UK sugar beet growing/refining industry, making it hard to invest more and be profitable. It would also reduce standards and take business away from ACP and least developed countries.
• Lower ATQ: The consensus among respondents was that the impacts would be the same as if it was a higher ATQ, but to less of an extent.
• No ATQ: It would help maintain the UK sugar market’s current status quo, which provides healthy competition and ensures a diverse supply of sugar, while protecting jobs and the environment, particularly for sugar beet farmers.

3.4 Alternatives to an ATQ

Consultation question: Do you believe there is an alternative option that would be more suitable than an ATQ? Please answer this with consideration and reference to the government’s objective of delivering on its trade ambitions and commitment to developing countries and the principles set out in section 8 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.

39) 28 consultation respondents answered this question, with the largest number of respondents (43%) suggesting that liberalisation of the sugar market should be done through FTAs, rather than an ATQ, followed by those (21%) who wanted no ATQ or alternative, and those (18%) who wanted to reduce the tariff on raw cane sugar imports to 0%. A few (7%) suggested imposing higher tariffs on EU imports, while others (7%) suggested utilising the ACP and least developed countries and one (4%) who suggested a new econometric model to determine sugar trade policy.

Figure 3: Summary of public consultation responses by alternative proposals to an ATQ on raw cane sugar

Responses	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
FTAs	12	43%
No ATQ or alternative	6	21%
0% tariff on raw cane sugar	5	18%
Impose higher tariffs on EU	2	7%
Utilise ACP/less developed countries	2	7%
New economic model	1	4%
Total	28	100%

3.5 Administration of the ATQ

Consultation question: If a quota is introduced, do you think the quota should be administered via license, first come first served or other (please specify)? Please provide any further comments and evidence on your preference.

40) Overall, 41 consultation respondents answered this question, with the majority (88%) suggesting that the quota should be administered through a licence. Some (7%) thought the quota should be administered through a first come first served basis, while the rest (4%) were unsure or didn’t have a preference.

41) Common reasons among those in favour of a licence were that it would provide more transparency, ensure regulatory standards, and would prevent the ATQ from being dominated by large companies. It was also commented on that a licensing approach could offer more scope for the government to balance the needs of different exporting countries and give greater certainty and support to sugar cane farming communities in poorer origins.

42) Respondents who were in favour of a first come first served system highlighted that it would reduce the administrative burden that a licence would pose. It was further argued that it would ensure that speculators are not able to artificially inflate the cost of raw sugar by securing ATQ import licences free of cost from the UK government and then selling them to cane refiners at a profit.

Figure 4: Summary of public consultation responses by method of ATQ administration

Responses	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
Licence	36	88%
First come first served	3	7%
Don’t know	1	2%
Prefer not to say	1	2%
Total	41	99%

3.6 Standards and regulations for the ATQ

Consultation question: If a quota is introduced, do you believe there should be standard-based restrictions on products this ATQ should apply to and if so why?

43) 52 consultation respondents answered this question, with a majority (79%) believing that, there should be standard-based restrictions if an ATQ is established. The most common reason for this was that imported sugar cane should be produced to the same standard as domestic sugar beet to prevent it from undercutting UK farmers. Further reasoning included to protect the environment and encourage sustainability in countries the UK trades with.

44) However, others (21%) believed that there was no need to impose standard-based restrictions. Common reasons for this position were that it would provide a further non-tariff barrier to trade, and that the differences in the climate and production environments for sugar cane and sugar beet means that the same regulations should not be applied in practice.

Table 7: Summary of public consultation responses by support for standard-based restrictions on an ATQ

Responses	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
There should be standard-based restrictions	41	79%
There should not be standard-based restrictions	11	21%
Total number of responses	52	100%

3.7 The UK’s sugar supply diversity and food security

Consultation question: Do you agree that it is necessary to maintain a diversity of sugar supply and competition between different origins? And to what extent do you feel this contributes to the UK’s future food security?

45) Overall, 40 consultation respondents answered this question and they were split between agreeing (48%) and disagreeing (53%) that it is necessary to maintain a diversity of sugar supply and competition between different origins. Respondents were then asked to explain the extent to which they felt this diversity would contribute to the UK’s future food security.

46) Common reasoning from respondents who agreed was that protecting sugar cane farmers is important to the UK’s food security, and that sourcing from diverse markets helps to allocate resources more efficiently. Further reasoning was that increased competition from various sources was important, as it helps mitigate incidents such as COVID-19 where sugar demands increase, and an increased supply is needed. Others added that the UK currently has a large sugar deficit, so it is even more important that a diversity of supply is available.

47) Common reasoning from respondents who disagreed was that the UK already has a diverse supply of sugar and a good amount of competition. Further reasoning was that the current arrangements and UK domestic supply was enough and that it could be increased if necessary. Others argued that it is important but only if a diverse supply does not undercut the UK sugar market as that would harm the viability of the industry.

Table 8: Summary of public consultation responses by views on maintaining a diversity of sugar supply and competition between different origins

Responses	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
Maintaining diversity of sugar supply is necessary	19	48%
Maintaining diversity of sugar supply is not necessary	21	53%
Total number of responses	40	101%

3.8 Views on the government’s preliminary assessment on a sugar ATQ

Consultation question: What are your views on the government’s preliminary assessment that the previously proposed ATQ would not have a material impact on price incentives for UK sugar beet processors? And that the ATQ meets the level of imports of raw cane sugar and white sugar imports required to meet the UK’s sugar deficit?

48) 35 consultation respondents answered this question, with most (60%) disagreeing with the government’s preliminary assessment, arguing that there was either no sugar deficit, or also that the ATQ would lead to lower prices as a result of increased supply. They argued that these lower prices would therefore lead to more customers purchasing cane sugar rather than beet sugar, reducing the viability of the UK beet sugar industry.

49) Some of the respondents (14%) agreed with the government’s assessment because the EU is a net exporter and UK refined sugar prices are already around world price levels, so argued that an ATQ cannot reduce UK prices further.

50) Other respondents (14%) did not know if they agreed with the government’s assessment or not, and further respondents (11%) had not seen it.

Figure 5: Summary of public consultation responses by views on government’s preliminary assessment on a sugar ATQ

Responses	Number of responses	Responses as a percentage
Agreed	5	14%
Disagreed	21	60%
Don’t know	5	14%
Had not seen it	4	11%
Total	35	99%

4. Next steps

51) The government has carefully considered the responses to the consultation which have informed our approach to the raw cane sugar ATQ. Alongside this summary of response document, the government has published its response to the consultation that sets out the decisions that were made following this consultation. Please refer to the response document for further information.

52) DIT was grateful to those who took the time to respond to the consultation. The government will continue to engage and take into account views from devolved governments, business, civil society groups and consumers to ensure the UK’s trade policy works for the whole of the UK.

53) It was recognised that there continues to be a strong public interest around the subject matter raised in this consultation. The government will continue to engage with the public to listen to their concerns and help develop future UK trade policy.

54) Further guidance for traders to prepare ahead of the implementation of the UK Global Tariff Policy will be provided on GOV.UK.

5. Annex A: Consultation questions

5.1 Section 1: Privacy and confidentiality

All respondents were required to agree to the Privacy and Confidentiality section.

1. Do you consent for the Department for International Trade to gather your personal data and response to this consultation as outlined in the privacy notice?
2. Do you consent for your response to this public consultation to be used as part of future published government documents relating to the UK’s Global Tariff policy?
3. Do you consent for the Department for International Trade, or organisations working on their behalf, to contact you regarding the responses you have given?
4. The Department for International Trade would like to contact you about wider trade policy and related developments in the future. Do you consent for us to do so?

All respondents were required to provide general background information:

1. Please provide your name
2. What is your email address?
3. Who are you responding on behalf of?

5.2 Section 2: Domestic sugar production

1. Do you produce sugar in the UK? [for example, through processing sugar beet or refining raw cane sugar]
2. In which region(s) in the UK do you produce sugar?
3. What is the approximate value and quantity of sugar that you produce annually?
4. What method of sugar production do you use?
5. What is the intended purpose of the sugar you produce?

5.3 Section 3: Importing sugar into the UK

1. Do you import sugar in any form into the UK?
2. Which of the following do you import into the UK?
3. From which region(s) of the world do you import these products?
4. Which of the following trading arrangements do you use for your imports?
5. What is the intended purpose of the products you import?

5.4 Section 4: Exporting sugar to the UK

1. Do you export sugar in any form into the UK?
2. Which of the following do you export to the UK?
3. From which region(s) of the world do you export these products into the UK?
4. Which of the following trading arrangements do you use for your exports?
5. What is the intended purpose of the products you export?

5.5 Section 5: Questions on sugar ATQs

1) Are you in favour of an ATQ on Raw Cane Sugar?

2) Please explain your answer and provide any further comments and evidence to support this view:

3) Are you content with the previously proposed volume of the ATQ of 260,000 tonnes?

4) Please state the preferred volume you are proposing:

5) Please explain the impact your preferred volume would have on you [Please answer this question based on the viewpoint of how you are responding to this consultation. For example, if you are responding as a business, the answer should focus on the impact it would have to your business.]

6) Do you believe there is an alternative option that would be more suitable than an ATQ? Please answer this with consideration and reference to the government’s objective of delivering on its trade ambitions and commitment to developing countries and the principles set out in section 8 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The TCBTA principles are below:

• the interests of consumers in the UK
• the interests of producers in the UK of the goods concerned
• the desire to maintain and promote the external trade of the UK
• the desire to maintain and promote productivity in the UK
• the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition

7) What would the impact on you be if an ATQ were established for raw cane sugar at 260,000 tonnes: [Please answer this question based on the viewpoint of how you are responding to this consultation. For example, if you are responding as a business, the answer should focus on the impact it would have to your business.

8) What would the impact on you be if an ATQ were established for raw cane sugar at a) a lower amount that 260,000 tonnes and b) a higher amount than 260,000 tonnes and c) no ATQ at all: [Please answer this question based on the viewpoint of how you are responding to this consultation. For example, if you are responding as a business, the answer should focus on the impact it would have to your business.]

9) If a quota is introduced, do you think the quota should be administered via: Please provide any further comments and evidence on your preference:

10) If a quota is introduced, do you believe there should be standard-based restrictions on products this ATQ should apply to and if so why?

11) Please use this space to provide any views or evidence around sugar imports and exports to the UK or UK production that you feel may be relevant to the review - that you do not feel you have had the opportunity to express in any of your previous answers:

12) Do you agree that it is necessary to maintain a diversity of sugar supply and competition between different origins? And to what extent do you feel this contributes to the UK’s future food security?

13) What are your views on the government’s preliminary assessment that the previously proposed ATQ would not have a material impact on price incentives for UK sugar beet processors? And that the ATQ meets the level of imports of raw cane sugar and white sugar imports required to meet the UK’s sugar deficit?

5.6 Section 6: Stakeholder Information

1. Where do you currently live (your main address)?
2. What is your gender?
3. How old are you?
4. What is your ethnicity?
5. What is the name of the organisation you are responding on behalf of?
6. What is your company number with Companies House?
7. Which area(s) does your organisation represent?
8. How many members does your organisation represent in total?
9. What is the name of the public sector body you are responding on behalf of?
10. Which area(s) does your public sector body represent?
11. What is the name of your business?
12. What is your company number with Companies House?
13. Approximately how many employees are currently on your businesses’ payroll in the UK across all sites?
14. Where is your business is located?
15. In what sector(s) does your business predominately operate in the UK?
16. What is the name of the trade association or business representative organisation you are responding on behalf of?
17. Number of businesses represented
18. Average size of businesses represented
19. Which business area(s) does your organisation represent?
20. How did you find out about this consultation?

6. Annex B: Demographics

1) The Demographic questions in the consultation form were tailored based on the respondent groups that the consultation responses was submitted on behalf of. This means there is variation in the demographic questions asked for each of the Individual, Business, NGO, Public Sector Bodies and Business Association groups.

2) The results of each question have been separated into each of these groups and presented through graphs below.

6.1 Individuals

3) A total of 4 out of 5 individuals who responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 1: showing the location of the individuals who responded to the public consultation

Location	Number of respondents
East of England	2
South East England	2

4) A total of 4 out of 5 individuals who responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 2: showing the sex of the individuals who responded to the public consultation

Sex	Number of respondents
Male	4

5) A total of 4 out of 5 individuals who responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 3: showing the age of the individuals who responded to the public consultation

Age	Number of respondents
45 to 54	2
55 to 64	1
65+	1

6) A total of 4 out of 5 individuals who responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 4: showing the ethnicity of the individuals who responded to the public consultation

Ethnicity	Number of respondents
White	4

6.2 Non-governmental organisations

A total of 3 out of 4 of the non-governmental organisations that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them. They could select multiple answers for this question, but because each one gave different responses, the individual answers of each organisation have been separated out below.

Graph 5: showing the sectors represented by non-governmental organisations who responded to the public consultation

Sector	Number of respondents
Labour/workers rights, human rights, international development, food, environment	1
Health	1
Various	1

7) A total of 3 out of 4 of the non-governmental organisations that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 6: showing how many members are represented by non-governmental organisations who responded to the public consultation

Numbers represented	Number of respondents
0 to 9	1
10,000 +	2

6.3 Public sector bodies

8) A total of 2 out of 2 of the public sector bodies that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them. It is important to note that multiple answers could be selected for this question.

Graph 7: showing the size of the businesses who responded to the public consultation

Size of business	Number of respondents
International trade	2
Consumers, product regulation and safety, transport, national government	1

6.4 Businesses

9) A total of 46 out of 60 of the businesses that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 8: showing the size of the businesses who responded to the public consultation

Size of business	Number of respondents
1 to 9	24
10 to 49	10
50 to 99	1
100 to 249	3
500 to 4999	5
5000+	3

10) A total of 51 out of 60 of the businesses that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 9: showing the location of businesses who responded to the public consultation

Location	Number of respondents
East Midlands	4
East of England	34
London/Greater London	2
South East England	4
Yorkshire and the Humber	4
Across the UK	3

11) A total of 48 out of 60 of the businesses that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 10: showing the sectors of businesses who responded to the public consultation

Sector	Number of respondents
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	39
Food, beverages and tobacco	7
Machinery and equipment	1
Several sectors	1

6.5 Business associations

12) A total of 5 out of 8 of the business associations that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 11: showing the number of businesses represented by the business associations who responded to the public consultation

Number of businesses represented	Number of respondents
Less than 10	1
10 to 100	2
1001 to 5000	1
More than 10,000	1

13) A total of 5 out of 8 of the business associations that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them.

Graph 12: showing the average size of businesses represented by the business associations who responded to the public consultation

Average size of business	Number of respondents
0 to 9 employees	1
10 to 49 employees	2
250+ employees	2

14) A total of 4 out of 8 of the business associations that responded to the public consultation answered this demographic question relevant to them. It is important to note that multiple answers could be selected for this question.

Graph 13: showing the business sectors represented by the business associations who responded to the public consultation

Sector	Number of respondents
Food, beverages and tobacco	3
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	4