House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Seventh Report

The Government Action Plan

8. On 28 March 2002, the Government published an Action Plan to "to address concerns at the risk of disease from meat and other food products smuggled into Britain".[20] The Action Plan followed a forum on illegal meats, held on 21 March (originally convened by the National Farmers' Union but subsequently hosted by the Government[21]), and the discussions in Downing Street on 26 March on taking forward the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.[22] We have appended a copy of the Government's Action Plan to the end of our report but for ease of reference - its key points are:

a full risk assessment of disease threat posed by illegal meat imports;
more cooperation to achieve effective interagency enforcement;
strengthened intelligence to counter smuggling;
increased powers to search for illicit produce;
liaison with Europe to reform rules on personal imports;
increased public awareness through more publicity.

The Government is also exploring the use of detector dogs and the use of xray machines to scan containers.[23] In the following paragraphs we review the progress that the Government has made in each of the key areas of its Action Plan.

RISK ASSESSMENT

9. We received a number of comments on the risks associated with illegal meat imports. Firstly, we were reminded that "the current system of import controls cannot provide a 100 per cent safeguard",[24] and that "it is not feasible to establish a level of import control that would eliminate the risk of illicit meat importation".[25] We agree that risk will never be eliminated, and that proportionate steps need to be taken. Secondly, we were told that there were different degrees of risk to human and/or animal health according to the type of product,[26] the origin of the product,[27] the way it got into the United Kingdom,[28] the size of the consignment,[29] and its ultimate destination.[30] Thirdly, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pointed out that the "perception of risk and the actual risk posed by these likely routes [by which foot and mouth disease entered the United Kingdom] may be very different".[31] But at present port health authority officers "do not make any assessment of whether there is any danger in them [illegal imports], it is the fact that they are illegal and we are there with the duty to control illegal imports".[32]

10. The first element of the Government's Action Plan addresses the area of risk. The Government has commissioned a risk assessment which addresses the question:

"For each specified hazard [foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever, swine vesicular disease and African swine fever], what is the probability per year that the importation of meat will result in at least one infection with the specified hazard in the Great Britain livestock population?".[33]

The risk assessment, being undertaken by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, is expected to be completed in September.[34]

11. Dr Wooldridge, who is overseeing it, outlined for us the principles, elements and outcomes of the risk assessment. She began by saying that the risk assessment was about probability "because you can never be one hundred per cent certain that something will not happen". The risk assessment will work out how likely a disease outbreak is under a given set of circumstances. Under each set of circumstances (or 'pathway') one, or a number of, crucial points will be identified. If safeguards can be put in place at those crucial points then the risk along a 'pathway' can be reduced.[35]

12. The National Farmers' Union highlighted the border as one of those crucial points: it told us that biosecurity "starts at our borders with the outside world and that border is in some cases ... the European Union border".[36] Lord Whitty acknowledged that before and during the foot and mouth epidemic, the Government "did point to the problems of border control, but the far more important issue is if there is a risk of that coming in, how do we stop it getting into the food chain".[37] Dr Wooldridge acknowledged that there is uncertainty with every risk assessment but in this case "uncertainties may be rather larger than in most [because] people are not rushing to tell you about illegal imports".[38] The degree of uncertainty about the scale of the problem at the border, particularly if greater certainty can be achieved through the risk assessment about other points on the 'pathway', such as preventing a disease spreading to animals, may mean that changes to policy focus on, for example, the farm gate rather than the port of entry. Nevertheless, we recommend that the Government continue to retain and upgrade the information it gathers about illegal meat imports to enable it to keep the results of its risk assessment under review.

13. The National Farmers' Union point that the border is "the first line of protection"[39] remains true. Despite the difficulty in quantifying the risk, it should be possible to determine which particular types of illegal meat imports pose the greatest risk and target them accordingly. We therefore recommend that full details of the risk assessment, including assumptions made and information that would improve the assumptions, are published with the risk assessment so that it is clear to all stakeholders why particular actions are pursued. Whatever measures are agreed they must not be seen as an alternative to effective bio-security at home.

14. A number of witnesses were concerned that the risk assessment was focussing on just four hazards. The Chartered Institute for Environmental Health wanted the risk assessment "to be extended to public health issues",[40] and the National Farmers' Union were concerned about plant diseases,[41] as well as potential human health risks.[42] Dr Wooldridge told us that the Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for human health issues relating to food, had been informed of the study, and that the methodology being used "would be equally applicable to human health risks". The Agency was, though, "otherwise occupied". Lord Whitty added that the Food Standards Agency "do indicate that there is a public health risk but ... they reckon that risk is extremely small indeed".[43] Given the degree of overlap between the methodologies for human and animal health risk assessments and the concern expressed to us about public health risks from illegal meat, we believe that the Food Standards Agency should re-examine its decision not to undertake a risk assessment on the human health implications of illegal meat imports in parallel with the current study.

15. One further issue must be taken into account in interpreting and using the results of the risk assessment. The Food Standards Agency highlighted the benefits of imported food, including nutritional benefits and consumer choice, which could be lost if food imports were to be curtailed.[44] The Food and Drink Federation considered that necessary tightening of controls of illicit trade should not "unduly penalise or delay licit commercial (or personal) trade, not least to avoid deterioration/loss of perishable products or the addition of extra costs to industry".[45] Lord Whitty reiterated that, once the risk assessment is completed, "we will have an indication of what measures you can take to reduce the risk from X parts per million to Y parts per million and we can probably cost the measures that will be needed in order to do that".[46] We commend this approach but we recommend that the costs considered when assessing new policies to deal with illegal meat imports do not just include those faced by Government, but also those faced by the whole food chain. To put any measures into context there were more than 60 million passenger movements through Heathrow alone last year.[47] This demonstrates the scale of the tasks involved and the risk/benefit relationship.

CO-OPERATION AND INTELLIGENCE

16. The Government's Action Plan seeks to improve targeting of anti-smuggling measures and "action has already been taken to strengthen intelligence gathering and sharing between enforcement agencies".[48] This was confirmed by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health who thought the situation was getting better and that "networking is getting better".[49] We were told that members of the Association of Port Health Authorities "electronically advise one another of what is going on".[50] However, we were also told that "unfortunately there is not a central, co-ordinating point that ought to be disseminating in a cohesive fashion".[51] The United Kingdom Government must enter into international discussions aimed at ensuring effective monitoring of the export trade in order to bear down on any illegality. To assist such discussions it must demonstrate that its own house is in order, by making sure that inspections of exports from the United Kingdom are effective. We are moreover pleased that port health authority officers already have some form of system for advising each other of developments but are concerned that it is not centrally co-ordinated - we hope that the establishment of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs's Illegal Animal Products Seizures (ILAPS) database will assist this process.

SEARCH POWERS

17. On 22 May 2002, the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations 2002 came into force.[52] These new Regulations gave port health authority officers the power to search passengers.[53] However, both the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health and the Association of Port Health Authorities believed that officers should also have been granted the powers to stop as well as search.[54] Checks undertaken previously have required the presence of Customs officers because they do have such powers.[55] Lord Whitty told us that he did not exclude a change in the powers of port health authority officers.[56] He commented, however, on the fact that Customs officers enjoy "quasi police powers", and that giving the power to stop and detain suspects to port health authority officers would have practical implications, particularly in terms of them having proper reinforcements available.[57] Granting the power to stop people to port health authority officers is not entirely straightforward. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of the case made for such new powers. We therefore welcome the fact that the powers available to port health authority officers will be reviewed, and we recommend that the Government report the outcome of that review to Parliament within a year.

18. Another concern about the new Regulations was that no guidance about the implications and use of the new powers they confer had been issued.[58] Lord Whitty said that such a protocol would be produced but that Government first needed "some experience of how [the new powers] are used and the problems [port health authorities] engage in when using those powers". The guidance should be available by the beginning of August.[59] We are concerned that no guidance was issued with the new powers. At the very least draft guidance should have been prepared, to help officers understand the new powers available to them, on the understanding that detailed guidance would be based on that draft guidance and experience of how the new powers worked. We hope that the new guidance published in August will address our concerns, and that it will be regularly reviewed and updated to take account of the experience of using the new powers.

19. We note that the Action Plan promised the powers under the Products of Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations 2002 would come into force in April. In the event they were delayed until 22 May. We ask that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs explain that delay.

20. We were also told of the differences in requirement for different types of imports. All imports of products of animal origin from third countries must enter Britain through a border inspection post and a manifest for each consignment must be presented to port health authority officials ahead of the consignment's arrival.[60] The Chartered Institute for Environmental Health told us that it would welcome prior notification of all imports - not just those of meat.[61] We recommend that the Government assess the costs and benefits of this proposal against the findings of the risk assessment.

EUROPEAN UNION AND THE PERSONAL ALLOWANCE

21. The Government has committed itself to "work with European authorities to clarify and potentially tighten enforcement of rules on third country imports reaching the United Kingdom via other European Union member states; and to reform rules on personal imports".[62] We welcome this constructive approach to working with other Member States.

22. The present rules on personal imports from third countries are set out below. The Association of Port Health Authorities told us that it believed that the current rules were "very confusing to the public" and that the Association would like a total ban on personal imports.[63] The Association was supported in this call by the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health,[64] and the National Farmers' Union, although the latter suggested that milk for babies and essential medical items should be exempted.[65] The Government was also of the view that there was "a clear problem" about the personal import limits for meat and fish, and agreed that a ban on personal meat imports was needed.[66]

Personal import limits[67]

1.0 kg of meat cooked in a hermetically sealed container
1.0 kg of fish
1.0 kg of milk powder (from specified countries only)
2.0 kg of fruit/raw vegetables*
1 bouquet of cut flowers
5 retail packets of seeds*
2.0 kg of bulbs, corms, tubers and rhizomes* **
5 other plants* **

Notes:
* not potatoes
** Euro-Mediterranean region only

23. Lord Whitty told us that the Government had raised the question of personal limits for meat imports with Commissioner Byrne (Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection), and that the European Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to public health has discussed the issue.[68] The Government hoped that the Commission would propose changes to the rules on personal imports. The current allowances for personal imports of food, particularly meat and fish, are very confusing. We therefore firmly support the Government in their objective of securing a ban on the personal import of meat products. However, if the European Union does not bring forward better and more effective measures to deal with this potential abuse the United Kingdom should give notice that it will introduce unilateral action.

PUBLICITY

24. Lord Whitty acknowledged that publicity about the issue of illegal meat imports "has not achieved the level of awareness I would have liked".[69] He accepted that Government still needed to raise awareness and said that more information would be available at airports, in travel agencies, with airlines and at the point of embarkation shortly. Whilst we were at Heathrow, we saw the posters in the arrivals' area. We believe that they have a number of limitations: they are only in English;[70] they contain too much information; and they are not well located. We welcome Lord Whitty's "determination to get the message on the carousel" but are concerned about the costs he mentioned in doing this.[71] We believe that it is in the airports', the airlines' and the Government's interest to have passengers flowing freely at airports and believe that the greater availability of information and consequent lesser need for checks of passengers would facilitate this.

25. We recently visited New Zealand, and flew via the United States. On approach to both countries we were made very aware by information provided on-board the flight that personal imports of meat and other foods were not permitted. The Association of Port Health Authorities commented that "more work that could be done with the airlines themselves. All the people coming in are the customers of the airlines and [they] ... could have a role in ensuring that people are aware of the controls. They do on duty-free allowances, so why not for products of animal origin?"[72] Lord Whitty told us that the Government intended to "persuade the airlines to do as they do in other countries, to make announcements themselves. Part of the next stage of our public awareness campaign will be to provide inflight messages".[73] He also said that "we will have to get legal authority to enforce it on airlines but we are hoping they will cooperate on this, and to produce a video which could be used on longhaul flights".[74] Written information might be made available in a leaflet to be handed out with landing cards. We believe that the provision of information in-flight is essential, and we recommend that the Government urgently seek to persuade airlines to distribute written leaflets, and show videos as appropriate, setting out the restrictions on personal imports of meat and other foods. If airlines will not do so voluntarily we recommend that the Government take steps to obtain legal powers to compel them to do so.

OTHER MEASURES

26. The Government has also announced "other specific measures", including:

Pilot use of detector dogs to be underway by summer 2002.

Examination of the potential benefits of using xray equipment to scan containers and personal baggage to detect illegal imports, leading if successful to a trial.

Provision of 'amnesty' bins or equivalent measure to encourage the surrender of unintended illegal personal imports.

Research into available technologies which might help detect illegal imports.[75]

It is worth noting that all of these proposals will heighten public awareness and raise the profile of the issue.

27. We note the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health's observation that "enforcement officers have suggested that initially money be spent on supporting their additional activities and that the use of detector dogs be considered at a later stage".[76] A pilot project using detector dogs has just started.[77] It will be important to integrate the use of these dogs with the use of dogs for other purposes (such as detecting drugs). Although we welcome the trial use of dogs to detect illegal meat imports it would be helpful if the Government were to publish the objectives of the pilot scheme and the criteria against which its success will be judged.

28. Lord Whitty suggested that the x-ray system "is not very effective at picking out meat as distinct from other things" and its role would be limited.[78] The provision of 'amnesty' bins also appears to be getting bogged down in the minefield of the collection and disposal of goods surrendered.[79] Lord Whitty suggested that they would be "symbolic".[80] We accept that there are limitations and problems with the proposals to use x-ray equipment and provide amnesty bins, but we agree with Lord Whitty that both could be valuable in raising public awareness. We therefore recommend that both be carefully piloted and assessed for their efficacy in terms of addressing the problem of illegal meat imports and of raising public awareness of the problem.