Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)
27 APRIL 2004
LORD WHITTY
AND MR
ANDREW LAWRENCE
Q180 Chairman: I thought that Mr Lawrence's
department in Defra was tasked with the job of opening up opportunities
for Britain's food and farming industry. So far I have been told
that you have had some discussions with Food from Britain, that
you have visited some but not all the countries, that you have
not worked out in any detail the economic gains or losses if that
be the case to going there, and we have had a nice conversation
with Tesco's. What actually are we doing to take advantage of
all these—
Lord Whitty: I think you are underestimating
what I was saying about Food from Britain and their activities.
There are a number of different things they have done; they have
taken British companies over, for example, this month to Vienna
for an effort which focuses on Central European markets. They
have done quite a lot of research on food companies' potential
for supplying Central and Eastern Europe, they have looked specifically
at the Baltic States in another study, and they have tried to
bring together the market information to ensure that medium-sized
British companies have a better idea of the market. So it is not
down to ministers or, indeed, Mr Lawrence—
Q181 Chairman: I appreciate that, but
whilst all this is going on—
Lord Whitty: Food from Britain
is the body tasked with doing that.
Q182 Chairman:— the one thing that
became very clear to the Committee is that the Germans and the
French are already piling in there with investment to exploit
opportunities in this area. Meanwhile, Britain is attending an
exhibition here and talking to a few people there. Do you not
think you should have been a bit more proactive to be ahead of
the game? There are 38 million people in Poland, for example,
and there are another 10 million in Hungary. Between the two of
them they represent the population of England. It would seem that
we ought to be being a little more proactive. Do you not think
so?
Lord Whitty: I think we are being
proactive, and I think both through our embassies and through
UK trade and investment there has been a lot of activity going
on.
Q183 Chairman: How much investment, then,
have we put into Poland and Hungary?
Lord Whitty: Have we put in, or
are you talking about—
Q184 Chairman: I am talking about the
United Kingdom. If we go back, say, five years and look at the
level then—bearing in mind it has been fairly evident for
the last two years that Poland and Hungary are going to become
full members of the European Union—what have we actually
done?
Lord Whitty: We have already described
one major British company which is by far the biggest operator
in Poland and Hungary as far as the retail side is concerned.
There are other investors in that area. It is true that we have
not—
Q185 Chairman: Which, for example?
Lord Whitty: I have not actually
got the names on the tip of my tongue but there are other investments
from the food sector in Central and Eastern Europe. If, however,
you want me to confirm your general point that British investment,
whether it be in the agriculture sector or in the food sector,
has probably been less than the German, that is undoubtedly true—as
it is with almost every other sector. I do not think that there
is a problem that has been specific to agriculture. I do not know,
Andrew, if you want to add anything to that?
Mr Lawrence: I do not have the
list to hand but we can provide you with one. In terms of the
strategy, it is not actually the responsibility of my division
to do this but Food from Britain has had £5 million for promotion
across the board, and they do have a proactive strategy and work
closely with our commercial desks in the embassies.
Chairman: I think we would like to know
a bit more about this because I think our report should reflect
to those who read it what the opportunities really are, what the
help is that the United Kingdom Government could give them and
what they have done so far to help this process forward, and where
they might see some opportunities. I would like to move on now
to Diana Organ.
Q186 Diana Organ: In the visits that
you had with some of the states, the majority of states that are
going to be, from 1 May, fully in the EU, how much have you been
able to work with them to ensure that their environmental standards
and their food safety standards are absolutely compatible with
ours? When we went, as a Committee, we met food standards agency
organisations and I do not think we were terribly convinced of
their rigour and their effectiveness. The NFU, for instance, are
very concerned about this (because they say there has got to be
a level playing field) because of the confidence that our consumers
will have in the products that are going to be on the shelves
and, also, in the damage that will happen to our markets if there
is a general loss in confidence because there is not seen to be
through the EU a level playing field on food standards and on
environmental quality standards. I just wondered how much you
have been able to ensure that the new Member States meet those
standards.
Lord Whitty: I have, in dealings
with our opposite numbers in some of the enforcement agencies
when I have visited, been insistent—even at quite an early
stage in the last 24 months and right through that period—that
the accession states have to take very seriously both environmental
standards and the safety standards. These are very important issues
as far as Western markets are concerned. It is true that there
are a number of derogations within some of the Member States on
some of the phytosanitary and food safety issues—and indeed
some of the environmental issues although not so much directly
in relation to agriculture—and that therefore there will
be some delay before this is an absolute level playing field in
terms of regulation. Most of those derogations, however, would
finish by 2007 at the latest and we, therefore, will be on a level
playing field relatively early on in the new enlarged Europe.
There is a separate question as to how far the enforcement of
those laws operates. I think most of the Member States have been
very effective, but in the end some of them have periods of hiatus
in actually transposing EU legislation into their domestic law
and will all be at that point, subject to the derogations, but
there is also a question of enforcement and I think the situation
there does vary from country to country. In many cases, the enforcement
mechanisms are regionalised or localised and there will be quite
a patchy enforcement pattern to start with. We have been engaged,
for example, in helping both the payment agencies and the enforcement
agencies with bringing their operations up to scratch, as indeed
have other existing Member States. I think whilst it will be problematical
for a bit we can see a position where enforcement as well as the
standards will be up to Western European levels. I am not pretending
that is going to happen as from next week.
Q187 Diana Organ: To follow on from that,
when you said it is going to be a bit patchy and you are a little
concerned about the enforcement, can I just ask you what do you
think you ought to be doing to ensure that the Commission can
be effective and bring in enforcement? Secondly, the other thing
about where it is patchy. Where do you have your concern? We went
to visit Poland and Hungary but you have done a little bit of
a wider trawl. Where have you been looking and thinking "Well,
we are not really sure that they are going to be coming up to
the same standards that we are making our food producers and processors
come up to"? The third thing is, have you or your officials
or anybody from the Food Standards Agency been to any of the new
accession states to give them advice, guidance and help on how
they could come up to the standards of the rest of the EU?
Lord Whitty: On the last question,
as I said, our Defra officials and FSA officials have been helping
to bring some of the Member States up to the standards.
Q188 Diana Organ: Which ones? When you
say "some"—
Lord Whitty: I am not sure I have
got it immediately in front of me but, for example, we have helped
the Poles on their regional payments agency equivalent and we
have helped on some of the phytosanitary ones elsewhere. We can
give you the full list of our engagements but, of course, it is
not only the UK that is doing this it is other existing EU members.
I think, in terms of where are the anxieties, for a start there
is a fairly rigorous process of clearing premises but not all
of those premises have yet been cleared. There will, for example,
be a two-tier operation in Poland where some dairies and some
meat producers will have been certified for export to the rest
of the existing EU and others will not. Theoretically that is
a sustainable position in that they have supplied the local market
with the second tier but, in practice, there may be some slippage
and I think it is important that those EU countries who receive
imports do check that they have come from certified premises.
I think, on the other aspect of enforcement, where I say it is
patchy, it is not so much patchy between countries, although I
am sure some countries are somewhat better than others, as between
different parts of the country; food standards tend to be localised
and locally enforced through local authorities rather than through
a national body and some of those local authorities are better
than others. I suspect, for example, that enforcement in the West
of Hungary is considerably better than more in the East of Hungary,
but on the other hand it is also probable that because it is more
productive and profitable agriculture in the West more of the
exports, such as they are, will come from the better regulated
end of the country. We cannot be sure that that is totally the
case, but I do think one has to bear in mind that, for example,
when Spain and Portugal entered the EU there were huge anxieties
about their ability to impose adequate standards and within a
very few years their methods of enforcement and meat hygiene,
for example, were as good as any in the rest of Europe. So I think
one can exaggerate the nature of the problem.
Q189 Diana Organ: What would you be doing,
though, to follow on because you did not quite answer the question,
to exert pressure on the Commission to make sure that when the
time is appropriate and we have gone through this initial patchy
stage that they do enforce the regulations?
Lord Whitty: The Commission does
not directly enforce it, it is the national agencies which enforce
and it is, therefore, making sure that they have the capacity
at the national level to enforce, which is part of the help that
we and other EU countries have already been giving them.
Mr Lawrence: On the question of
food establishments, as Lord Whitty says, Poland has transitional
periods and some other countries do as well—the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia have
transitional periods for upgrading their agri-food establishments.
They have been granted on the basis of an assessment by the Commission.
The Food and Veterinary Office have made—I do not know the
exact number—tens, maybe a hundred visits to satisfy themselves
that the transitional arrangements can be implemented and enforced
properly. We, as the UK, have contributed via technical assistance
and other measures to help the Commission. Throughout this whole
process there has been a stress on the need for there to be no
diminution in protection for animal, food and plant health, and
that is what has guided the Commission and others. Just last Thursday
the DG Sanco said that they were satisfied that the transitional
arrangements in place and the efforts made by the applicant countries
in the area of food safety and border inspection were sufficient
and adequate, and they thought there would be no risk after 1
May. That is the basis on which we proceed.
Q190 Diana Organ: Lastly, because there
is this sort of hazy period, do you not think it is more important
than ever that we do not have a situation in the UK—where
we are rather keen on "gold-plating", that is the accusation
that is put to us; that if there is any sort of regulation we
tend to make sure that we do it "with knobs on"—where
we might be in a very unfair situation for our producers and processors
if we keep on "gold-plating" any regulation? It is very
important that during this period of enlargement we do not even
further disadvantage our industry.
Lord Whitty: As you know, the
Government have said they will not "gold-plate" any
EU regulation, and whilst there are some historic examples where
that has been done that will very rapidly be overtaken by the
whole of Europe coming up to that standard. For example, with
pig stalls and so on, next year the rest of Europe will catch
up with that. So I think the Government have been very firm on
the issue of "gold-plating", as far as agricultural
regulation is concerned.
Q191 Diana Organ: So there is a commitment
from you that we will not go on gold-plating?
Lord Whitty: I would not put it
quite in those terms because I do not think we are "gold-plating",
so it is not a question of "going on"; we have stopped
"gold-plating".
Mr Mitchell: Have you stopped "gold-plating"
your regulations yet?
Q192 Joan Ruddock: I wonder what the
Minister considers the new labelling and traceability arrangements
to be for GM. It seems to me that we do need "gold-plating"
if we want to have any certainty. The UK Government is determined
to break the moratorium and is voting for marketing consent for
the Bt11 maize. How does the Minister see our consumers being
guaranteed a choice of GM-free foods when, as far as we were able
to ascertain in our visits to Poland and Hungary, they had no
capability whatever to give that guarantee to their exports?
Lord Whitty: If there were GM
production, and it would have had to pass the EU certification
process if there is, in Poland and elsewhere, then it would be
subject to the same criteria and the same labelling and traceability
requirements as anybody else's. The country with the biggest current
GM production is Spain, but in order to be able to say it is non-GM
you have to be able to demonstrate that there is less than 0.9%
GM content, and that would be the case for any production in Poland
or elsewhere. So that the same rules would apply and the same
process would apply to any application from Poland for a licence
for GM produce, either for growing or importing, as would apply
to anything here, in Spain or anywhere else. I think the same
standards would apply because labelling is an issue for the final
markets and we would be able to enforce those standards, at least
to the same degree that we are able to enforce them in relation
to imports from existing EU countries.
Q193 Joan Ruddock: If I may suggest,
you do not have to grow a crop in order to have a canning factory
producing canned sweetcorn, for example. My point is, if we are
to guarantee, what are we going to put in place here to ensure
that we do not import contaminated produce that has a GM content?
Certainly I have no confidence that the accession countries universally
will be able to provide testing within their own countries as
to whether they have GM content or not in their produce.
Lord Whitty: I do not think this
is an issue that primarily relates to accession countries. We
have to be in a position where produce from anywhere in the world
coming into our shops and claiming to be non-GM can be tested.
I know queries have been raised as to whether that is the case
for anything, but there are huge amounts of GM produce being produced
in North and South America where that criteria will need to be
testable in the UK to enforce EU standards. I do not think that
is substantially altered by the fact that there might, in future,
be significant GM production in Poland. Insofar as people have
doubts about the effectiveness of the regime it is not affected
by potential Polish production when there is half the mid-west
covered by GM crops.
Q194 Mr Drew: This is going to be a question
I do not know the answer to, but if we were to take action, say,
that we were uncertain on the quality of the produce coming from
Poland and Hungary, and we would therefore go as far as to say
we were not prepared, unless it is clearly provable that that
does not contain GM, what would happen in terms of the EU arrangements?
Would we enter into an internal trade dispute or what?
Lord Whitty: If it is a product
that has been granted, through the system, a licence to be grown
or sold within the EU then it is able to come into the UK as long
as it does not claim to be non-GM. So the issue is not stopping
it coming in, in those circumstances. If you are saying could
there be GM crops which do not have a licence and which are not
recognised by EU law, then clearly that is a problem and, if discovered,
we would ban it in the same way as we would ban anything which
is unlicensed for consumption within the EU. That is not a trade
dispute; the Poles, or whoever, would have been producing something
which is not cleared for consumption within the EU. When there
is a safety problem or a plant disease, seed disease or animal
disease problem, where we find some imports from Germany, we ban
it for a time until they have cleared up the problem. It happens
quite frequently. In principle, GM production is not any different.
So there are two levels: is it legal GM, which is wrongly labelled
(in which case we can take action to ensure that it is properly
labelled); and if it is non-legal GM then we can ban it.
The Committee suspended from 4.36 pm to 4.48
pm for a division in the House
Q195 David Taylor: I am going to return
to food safety, so you can breathe a sigh of relief. Over recent
years there has been a well-grounded series of alarms and excursions
which have eroded consumer confidence. Any of those consumers
reading your earlier comments, Minister, might not have been especially
impressed by that phrase "enforcement might be problematical
for a bit"—I think that is what you said. I would like
to ask you: when the Commission, last autumn, expressed serious
doubts about the readiness of food processing plants in several
of the accession countries and then, with almost indecent haste,
announced earlier on this year that the new Member States will
not be subject to any food related safeguard measures imposed
by Brussels on whole countries (and you referred to derogations
earlier on); did you not, at least, have a frisson of unease about
that? No agriculture minister wants to have the next crisis on
their watch, do they?
Lord Whitty: I do not think it
is true to say that the Commission jumped from saying they had
got severe anxieties to clearing everything, because there are
premises which have still to be cleared—and Mr Lawrence
was referring to the FVO[8]inspections
and there will be some premises as of 1 May (quite a lot in some
cases) which will not have been so cleared—and that is quite
apart from the derogations. I think the Commission probably quite
rightly said there should be no general problem relating to whole
countries but there will be some premises which will not be entitled
to send their products into the European food market. The issue
of enforcement more generally is one which over the same period
as the derogations are phased out, if that is the right word,
should be enhanced to a level of food safety which would meet
the rest of European standards. I think we are talking about a
situation where very rapidly the Eastern and Central European
countries will come up to Western European standards. Clearly,
we still have to have vigilance within the UK market, and we will
require our own enforcement and our own inspections and so forth.
None of that changes because these countries have access to the
single market.
Q196 David Taylor: So would it be true
to say that you are reasonably relaxed about the standard of food
safety in the new states and its ability or capacity to undermine
consumer confidence, because to many it appears there are still
some lax standards? You have heard from colleagues who visited
plants elsewhere last year. You are reasonably relaxed about this?
Lord Whitty: "Relaxed"
is the wrong word. I am never relaxed about food safety standards,
I think there is always significant room for improvement and there
is always the possibility of something, not necessarily in Central
Europe but somewhere in the world and somewhere within the EU,
not meeting the standards that are supposedly being enforced.
So we have to be ever vigilant. "Relaxed" is not a term
I would use. What I am reasonably confident in is that the same
standards can be achieved by the Central European countries within
a reasonable period of time and, certainly, at the time when we
are claiming a level playing field will exist—at the end
of these derogations. That does not take anything away from the
need for us to be vigilant ourselves, both in things like traceability
and labelling and in checking on the quality of meat and so forth
which comes into this country.
Q197 David Taylor: Secondly, and finally,
Chairman, can I turn to the related area of illegal imports? The
Food and Drink Federation put to us their fears about what they
call the permeability of the new frontier to the enlarged EU,
and raised doubts about the capacity to prevent illegal imports
coming through the new Member States. How seriously does Defra
see the threat of such imports coming through such an enlarged
frontier to the new and enlarged EU?
Lord Whitty: The Commission themselves—and
I think Mr Lawrence referred to this earlier—have looked
directly at the 22 BIPs[9]so-called,
where they can import into the eastern end of the European Union.
So that imports into those countries are going to be fairly tightly
controlled, and the Commission were confident that those ports
or frontier crossings are up to the same level as those, for example,
in British ports. Therefore, I think I am reasonably confident
that the FBO and the Commission's officials have done a reasonable
job in that respect. Of course, if you are talking about a 1,000-mile
frontier, although it is being closed quite substantially for
other reasons, it is always possible that something can get across
that frontier which does not go through the BIPs, but in general
certainly the legal trade will come through only the 22 points
on that border with Belarus and the Ukraine.
Mr Lawrence: Twenty-two is the
figure that was approved in March. In fact, by 1 May it will be
37.
Q198 David Taylor: It is an issue at
arm's length, in a sense; you are happy enough about the comments
made by other organisations and bodies such as the Commission—
Lord Whitty: It is the Commission
which is the enforcement standard even in the UK.
Q199 David Taylor: I understand that,
but do you not think that the Minister of Agriculture in our own
country has some responsibility to assess the robustness of the
measures that are in place and to check those out? Has that been
weighed up? Have any tests been performed? What has been the direct
involvement in light of the importance of protecting the EU and
ourselves against any illegal imports? Have you just left it entirely
to the Commission?
Lord Whitty: Yes. The authorisation
of ports of entry is, in this sense, quality controlled for British
ports by the same body, so I am not saying anything different
for the standards that we expect in Felixstowe; the standards
will be exactly the same standards as we expect on the Polish/Belarus
border and they are enforced by the same people. So I do not think
there is any undermining of that, we are maintaining the same
standards which operate for us.
8 European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office. Back
9
Border Inspection Posts. Back
| 
