Examination of witnesses (Questions 160
- 181)
TUESDAY 29 FEBRUARY 2000
MR BEN
GILL, MR
MARTIN HAWORTH
and DR DERRICK
WILKINSON
160. I see.
(Mr Gill) So, it is animal and plants.
161. Tell us why it functioned well "by
and large"?
(Dr. Wilkinson) Why has it functioned well by and
large? Because it is a new agreement really. It is the extent
to which it has resolved disputes that have come up so far. I
think it has not shown that it has any serious flaws in itself.
A major dispute that it has dealt with, of course, has been in
the hormones case and, I think, that it took a proper and very
sensible view of that case. I think that looking at the provisions
of the SPS—what it actually requires of the contractual
parties—they are very sensible provisions. They simply require
that where there are international standards of plant safety,
that you get, as it were, the benefit of the doubt, if that is
what you are imposing, but it gives you the freedom to go higher.
It only requires that you offer some sensible evidence, some sort
of scientific reasoning for why you are going higher than everybody
else. It is a perfectly sensible sort of document. It has not
had a long life yet, but what it has done, it seems to me, is
that it has worked reasonably well.
(Mr Haworth) I think in paragraph 5 we point out that
one area that needs clarification is the definition of the precautionary
principle, which even more than multi-functionality, means many
things to different people.
162. I will be coming to that. What you are
saying is that it is a good and adequate working basis?
(Dr. Wilkinson) I think it is a very good start to
a very complex and emotive issue.
163. How does this belief in the reliability
of the scientific knowledge fit in with your views on the scientific
basis for the ban on hormones in beef?
(Dr. Wilkinson) The reason for going for science is
because it is clear and it is objective. It is as clear and objective
as we have available. It is not infallible, nothing is, we are
all human, but it is the most clear and objective way of looking
at something and of it being clear and objective and having that
transparency facility.
164. The use of science on hormones in beef
is valid?
(Mr Haworth) We are not scientific experts, we have
to rely on the advice of others who are more esteemed and knowledgeable
in these areas, and the scientific arguments of the European Union
have been somewhat open to question by other scientists. What
does worry me is that we do see, from time to time, political
interference with science, which does not help when you go into
SPS measures, and nowhere more so than the case where we are talking
about the precautionary principle.
165. The only scientific evidence that the European
Union has provided so far is one study which showed that one of
the hormones in issue may be carcinogenic if it was improperly
used, is that right?
(Dr. Wilkinson) Yes, if it was improperly used, but
the whole point is that the things are supposed to be properly
used. They are in the midst of, apparently, conducting a number
of studies to provide the risk assessment that the WTO required
of them, but it is interesting that they had not done that in
the first place. They had not, in fact, provided the scientific
evidence to justify the imposition of that measure.
166. You say in paragraph 4.1, "We have
always had serious concerns about the European ban on beef treated
with hormones. The suspicion is commonly held by our trading partners
that the measure was taken on spurious grounds." Do you think
it was taken on spurious grounds?
(Mr Gill) The decision was taken as a clear outpouring
of consumer reaction that was lobbied very hard for by certain
groups in the mid 1980s, which led to a European ban on the use
of hormones in beef within Europe. We then faced the position
akin to where we are with other sectors that we are talking about
at the moment, where we were faced with imports of product coming
in from the United States which was not deemed to be acceptable
within the European Union. Therefore, the problem arose within
the WTO. The Americans took the issue to a GATT panel and WTO
panel and it went back and forth, and it has not provided the
satisfactory answer that it should have done to resolve the issue,
because it is still in dispute and subject to countervailing duty
being imposed against certain Member States. The brief position
has been somewhat at variance with the rest of Europe's position,
based on the hard science and not on some of the problems that
arose in the early days and the issues that were referred to—not
the hormones we are talking about—in Italy in veal calves,
that caused certain malformities in young children, the results
of which were horrendous and totally despicable and should never
have happened. What then arose was that because that was classed
as a hormone, so to speak, as a result people said, "Stop
all hormones."
167. How does the belief in the reliability
of the scientific knowledge fit in with the situation that has
arisen with the French ban on British beef?
(Mr Gill) In that specific case the French position
is nothing other than a catalogue of twisted evidence and paper
thin fabrication of lies for their own protectionist approaches.
It is not based on science in any way at all. If you talk to the
scientists involved they have, in many forms since then, as good
as said that in public.
168. Let us move onto the precautionary principle.
It does raise the question of who should make the decisions, the
scientists or the politicians?
(Mr Gill) The way the question was asked of ABSA is
a question which we need to watch very carefully, down to even
the linguistic problem that there is no proper word in the French
dictionary for the word "safe", so, in the question
they use the words "without risk", and there is nothing
in this life that is without risk. If you phrase the question
accordingly you get the answer, which has led them into a political
problem compounded by their political ineptitude to manage local
systems, and the way their law is developed has caused not just
an issue, but has made them, rather than stop digging, dig a hole
even deeper.
Mr Paterson: There are no French words for "fair
play" either.
Mr Mitchell
169. Has the Commission's recent paper answered
the precise definition of a precautionary principle or is it still
a nonsense?
(Mr Haworth) We largely applaud the Commission's attempt
to define the precautionary principle. In the first instance,
I think there is a complete misunderstanding about what the precautionary
principle is. A lot of people think that the precautionary principle
just means taking a very cautious approach to issues. That is
not what it means. What it means is that where there is insufficient
scientific evidence to form a proper risk analysis, it may be
legitimate for governments to postpone a decision or take a cautious
approach until there is proper scientific proof. That is well
defined in the Commission's new approach. We also like the fact
that where precautionary principle is evoked, resources should
be used and should be put into the science to come up with clearer
answers. The only difficulty is that because they have tried to
define it so carefully they have put a lot of conditions in, and
some of those conditions could well be contradictory. So, in an
attempt to get to that position we may have actually created more
difficulties and more potential for further dispute than has been
solved, but we will see.
170. There is still an area of vagueness?
(Mr Gill) There is still further work that needs to
be done. It is consultation, I am led to understand, and I did
raise this issue with Her Majesty's Government a week ago, or
10 days ago, suggesting that the British Government ought to have
a clear statement on what it feels a proper definition of the
precautionary principle should be. There is no such definition
at this time. Furthermore, the latter point is crucial. In the
past, the way that the precautionary principle has been used by
certain sectors—not all—has been a delaying tactic
to kick into touch. I think we ought to be bold enough to say
that where we evoke the precautionary principle it is an admission
of failure, failure of the science, or our scientific communities,
to deliver the answers that society needs. Therefore, it should
be logical that there is an immediate re-prioritisation of the
research work to give those answers to form the proper evidence.
The precautionary principle approach otherwise costs industry
enormously. I can give a generic example, within the Nitrates
Directive it says 50 parts a million, at billions of pounds of
costs to British industry, when 100 parts a million—which
I think is increasingly accepted in scientific communities—would
have been perfectly rational and acceptable and not impinging
in any way on human health.
Mr Paterson
171. The Food Standards Agency would have to
define the principle?
(Mr Gill) I think it is entirely appropriate that
the Foodstuff Standards Agency ought to be involved in the definition
of the precautionary principle.
Mr Drew
172. Can I come in on the back of that? Clearly
what you are arguing is that no group of scientists is immune
to consumer reaction, and the only way you can try and make these
objectives possible is to take it out of the arena. I wondered
if that would apply to the European-wide Food Safety Organisation.
Is it potentially only when you get to a truly international one
that you have fairness and clarity—not for every item, that
would be ridiculous, but for items that are very controversial—and
for them to be adjudicated on that basis? Is that possible and
something you want to move towards?
(Mr Gill) There is, indeed, a White Paper out at the
moment from the European Union by Commissioner Byrne on the issues
of the European Union Food Safety Agency. I think it would need
to be clearly stated what its role is. We have repeatedly said,
for example, what our concerns are here in the United Kingdom.
If the Food Agency is to be successful, it must be very clearly
focused on its objectives and it must be able to give clear definitive
evidence, with confidence, to the consumer. One concern we have
in the United Kingdom has repeatedly been the inclusion of nutritional
advice within food safety standards, with nutrition not being
a safety issue, but a recommendation, and a recommendation to
individuals as to what they should and should not include in their
diet. Equally, there would be no justification for creating a
European Foodstuffs Agency that was simply going to duplicate
everything that has gone into a national area. What it needs to
be doing is coordinating and assisting Member States and be the
authoritative base for the European Union, which would then obviously
pick up some of the scientific committees that have been more
effectively created since the BSE crisis hit us, and build to
that in their work. It could then give a far more authoritative
basis, which might have been more useful within the context of
the problems that we have alluded to with regard to France, and
which have been obviated in these stupid situations that have
developed, and the totally unnecessary situations that have distracted
farmers, politicians and commissioners from other more crucially
important issues for the farming and food industry.
Mr Jack
173. In paragraph (5) 5.1 and 5.2 of your evidence
you discuss inspections of foodstuffs. When I read the first line
of this, "Border inspection of foodstuffs is an important
aspect of ensuring the safety of imported foods", I thought
"Is this notice of a last ditch position? If all else fails,
let us try and get an acceptable inspection regime in the context
of the WTO, which enables Europe to turn back anything that it
does not particularly like." Perhaps you would just like
to open the batting on that challenge to your position on inspection
and its purpose?
(Mr Gill) One of the key considerations that we have,
and one of the key concerns we have—whether or not caused
by climate change or global warming—is the ever onward spread
of disease—both animal and plant—or exotic diseases,
or various horse diseases that have spread from Africa into Europe.
There are plant diseases which are moving ever further forward.
For example, we have had major problems with Rhizomania and brown
rot infected potatoes coming out of Egypt into the United Kingdom.
There is the problem of Rhizomania as well as many other diseases
that we face, particularly, if we free up borders with Central
European countries where there is a whole raft of other diseases.
We have eradicated foot and mouth from the European Union and
we would not want to see it come back again. Until we can be assured
that any country that comes within European Union confines is
up to the standard we will be in, we would need to protect the
borders with other countries and, indeed, protect the borders
of countries without that, for the very same reason. As I am sure
you are well aware, if you travelled to the United States or New
Zealand and you have the misfortune to declare that you have been
on a farm within recent months, you are fumigated and abused to
a considerable degree to ensure that you have no contaminants
on or about your person.
Mr Drew
174. Do you think that in the context of what
this inquiry is about—the WTO—there are barriers,
problems and inhibitions to the operation of the kind of rigorous
inspection system which you have described as necessary, because
there is always the suspicion with any inspection system, or are
you, in fact, inventing a new barrier to trade. You put forward
very good reasons why you want a rigorous system. Does the WTO
prevent that?
(Mr Haworth) I do not think so. I think it is probably
the other way round. The system that we have in Europe generally
seems to work effectively, expeditiously and in an open way. Our
problems are, for example, with the United States where they do,
quite often, use their inspection procedure as a protectional
device, particularly on horticultural products.
(Dr. Wilkinson) The Japanese have done similar things
as well.
Mr Jack
175. Your stand point on this statute is, apart
from demanding a rigorous excise—and I might just ask you
in a second about how well the position is working—that
Europe should be attacking other people's inspection systems for
their failings?
(Mr Gill) If there is an identifiable failing, that
would be correct and we ought to apply similar rigour, where appropriate,
to the risk. I think that the key theory is that perhaps we should
have put in earlier when we were talking about precautionary principles
and safety issues, that the regulations should be proportionate
to the risk.
176. Given that the common external position
means that a variety of Member States, some with highly sophisticated
inspection and scientific back-ups, can look at materials coming
into the Community, what is your general opinion about the way
that the European inspection regime operates, because once goods
are within that they are in full circulation?
(Mr Haworth) I would not say that we have had any
particular difficulties in the last 20 years with porousness or
importing diseases through countries. It is a concern for the
future as we enlarge to the east. Indeed, that is one of the areas
where the European Union is spending the most money, in bringing
up the systems in anticipation of those countries joining the
European Union, and bringing up their systems so that they are
able to operate to our levels and standards. I am not aware that
there has been any huge problems of importing disease through
the external borders of the European Union and having free circulation.
(Mr Gill) An instance where that did occur was after
the unification of Germany where the natural border was the east/west
border and there was no proper border between East Germany and
Poland. We were aware of live animals coming into the UK which
were supposedly of German origin, but we suspected, because the
paperwork was different, that they could have been of Russian
origin. That brought disease into the country and lead to a number
of animals having to be slaughtered and destroyed.
(Mr Haworth) That was a temporary problem that was
resolved with the unification of Germany.
177. Let us move onto the disputes procedure,
which has caused quite a lot of dispute, particularly in the context
of bananas. I appreciate you are not responsible for bananas in
the Caribbean. What reforms of current disputes procedure, if
any, do you think ought to be introduced?
(Dr. Wilkinson ) I favoured the current dispute settlement
procedure, as one who advocated the unification of GATT dispute
settlement procedures as they were then. So I would not advocate
any particular approach. I think that it is more expeditious and
it is more certain, by and large, contracting parties are either
abiding by rulings—that is to say, bringing their offending
legislation or regulations into conformity—or, as in the
case of hormones in beef, paying a penalty for not doing so. These
are options that are available to them within the rules. I think
that it is working reasonably well. There are those who take the
view that it could be improved to bring about greater certainty
by actually being more proactive in saying what the changes to
the offending legislation are that are needed in order to bring
it into conformity. That is a view which I think is a perfectly
respectable view and it is one that we think is worth considering.
178. In previous examples of dispute resolution
have you been, as a Union, in any way involved? As a process,
you have just spoken warmly about its rigour and how you are supporting
proposed amendments to it. Do you feel involved where you need
to have a say?
(Mr Haworth) We have always been satisfied with the
amount of consultation we have had with the Commission on these
issues. Our concern has been that, on the disputes procedure,
where it proves impossible to solve a dispute it is always another
sector which suffers the consequence of that failure. That has
been a concern of ours. Therefore, for that reason we want to
see as efficient and expeditiously functioning a system as possible.
For example, in the banana case there was a threat to some agricultural
sectors.
(Mr Gill) Nothing to do with the UK as yet. It depends
where global warming is.
(Dr. Wilkinson) It is worth observing, in terms of
the current dispute settlement procedure, in light of this particular
question and the involvement of non parties, that it has become
clear over the past couple of years that there is now scope for
direct participation of interested parties that was not available
previously. So, to the extent that we are involved with disputes
in the future, and we sincerely hope that we will not be, but
to the extent that we are, we could be even more involved if we
so wished to be.
Mr Opik
179. What kind of vision should the Government
adopt to help farmers adapt to the demands of modernisation and
globalisation?
(Mr Gill) British farming has suffered, and British
farming has gone through enormous changes in recent times. We
have gone through the era of seeking to produce more and more
food, and we have achieved that, some might say too successfully.
As recently as 1979/1980 the British farmer was exhorted to produce
more and more, and not to worry about marketing, and we did that.
The industry, therefore, became totally pre-occupied with support
mechanisms as they became more complex. Now we need to move away
and change from that. The complexity of the support regimes that
we have outlined has been thrown up by some of the work that we
have done in the Regulatory Review Groups, where you have a multiplicity
of expressions that drive people to rally. The precision that
has been adopted towards some of the inspections seems to fail
to discriminate between those who have erred and should be punished,
and punished severely, and those who have made simple and genuine
errors, sometimes in favour of administration rather than themselves.
We need to move the whole thinking away from this and towards
support mechanisms, added value, and one of working together and
one that can bring professionalism into the marketing arena, which
is something that has been all too lacking. If I have a particular
self criticism—of course, there will be many—one in
particular is that we, as farmers, have been too mean in paying
the chief executives and saying that we will not pay them more
than we earn, and increasingly reducing the level of earnings.
This has been a recipe for disaster. The executives should be
paid the appropriate reward. We need to ensure a basis of exchanging
information across the country in a positive way that ensures
that opportunities that are to be presented in the rural development
regulations are not expended on consultant reports and that they
do actually go towards helping farmers develop new approaches.
We are already in discussion with the Government about how we
can put in place a central reference point, so that if a farmer
in Montgomeryshire had an idea, he does not have to find funding
for a consultant's report, he can pluck it off a central point
and, hence, efficiently utilise how we can exchange information
as well on more detailed points that are increasingly complex,
from business administration to the legalistic approach. There
is a very significant number of people that have taken early retirement
who would be pleased to spend a short period of time advising
groups as they set out. There are farmers that are positive in
looking and expanding in this way, but are put off by the quote
that they receive from a consultant which would cost them £25,000
to do the report. It is also building the structures in a way
that puts in place the parallel structure that we see elsewhere
but in the world of bigger and bigger companies involved downstream
do not detract from the initial marketing that there is, but to
ensure that we have a proper balance to the retail sector, where
we have now three retailers accounting for between 53 and nearly
60 per cent of the market share and one objective. I have seen
farmers' groups and farmers' cooperative groups as I have gone
around the country in recent times and we should, in each community,
seek to have these groups accountable for a similar share on our
side of the farm gate to give us a balance, not a dominance, but
a balance. So, basically the Government initiative should seek
to facilitate a real partnership, a partnership of equals, a partnership
where if there is a problem then all hands are on deck to solve
it. All too often we find a problem is solved by someone who has
no hands-on understanding of what the actual parameters are in
the production system and how you might solve it, and it is a
lot cheaper, and they are a lot more easily able to ascertain
whether it is a real problem. I remember going on a farm in the
south east on the day after there had been a hill storm. It had
bruised the spring onion crop and the producer was in living fear
that his whole crop was going to be rejected. It was only superficial
damage but, on an unannounced visit, the fear in that man's eyes
was clearly visible. That is no way to go ahead in a grown-up
society. It was an expression of domination, not partnership,
and what we need to do is deliver a partnership in that chain
so that we can move on to deliver the premium for food attracted
to the standard that we produce in the United Kingdom, and deliver
the consistency of that production in a proper partnership that
benefits all.
180. If you were allowed to ask for two things
from the Government for small and medium sized farmers, and tenant
farmers, what would they be?
(Mr Gill) We come back to the point you raised earlier,
which is the sector most at risk. The problem we have with being
specific is, that if I could compare a thousand acre farm in East
Anglia on the sands of the Brecklands with a thousand acre farm
or indeed a two hundred acre farm in the Wash, that is the problem.
I believe the best way we can help the smaller farmers in this
country is by two things, to facilitate structural arrangements
so they can benefit from the economies of scale by working together.
Secondly, where appropriate, and time permits, they are allowed
and the system in local government permits and facilitates alternative
part-time employment that will be consistent with the demands
on the farm. All too often we hear of this from central government,
and have done, that when it comes down to the regional level the
"more than my job's worth" approach applies or the "no
development after mine" approach applies or the "nimby"
approach applies that prevents it. There is no proper appreciation
taken in rural communities of the real value of job creation in
the part of sustaining rural communities and jobs in those areas.
Chairman
181. We had a very long session and I am grateful
to you and your colleagues. I am going to ask you one final short
question. This afternoon we have the Minister in front of us on
the Rural Development Regulation, if you could ask him one question
what would it be?
(Mr Gill) The question that I would ask him would
be, can he give any indication of when he can secure the appropriate
funding for that regulation from the European context, which although
it is an improvement on what we have been drawing down it substantially
under-allocates to the United Kingdom on the size of the United
Kingdom rural communities and the agricultural economy. The figure
should be nearer 8 per cent, from memory, off the top of my head,
rather than the 3.5 per cent we have been allocated. That regulation
therefore needs to be used even more effectively than it would
have been, because it is dreadfully under-funded, and done so
in a coordinated way, according to the lines I have just mentioned.
Chairman: Thank you very much, indeed. We are
grateful to all three of you for coming this morning and to the
way you have answered our questions. We have a little bit to go
in this inquiry, however, you have made a very useful contribution
and we are most grateful to you all. Thank you.
|
