Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
27 APRIL 2004
LORD WHITTY
AND MR
ANDREW LAWRENCE
Q200 David Taylor: So you are content
on this particular score, are you?
Lord Whitty: You keep putting
words into my mouth that I am "relaxed" and "content";
I am never either relaxed or content, and there will never be
a 100 per cent position on this, but they are, on the basis of
these reports and pretty rigorous inspection, as watertight as
the ports of entry within the existing European Union—where
the legal trade comes in to Central and Eastern Europe. As I say,
there is a big frontier here and there are, therefore, issues
of illegal trade, but all the signs are that that frontier is
being quite effectively closed for, if you like, people reasons
rather than animal reasons, but it is tight.
Q201 David Taylor: You did not say "content"
but you said "all the signs are" that all is well, so
we will have to take that as an equivalent. Thank you very much.
Lord Whitty: It is never equivalent
to "content", David.
Q202 Chairman: Before I call in Mr Lepper
and Mr Simpson for supplementaries, in that order, can I ask if
your department did any kind of risk analysis, either as part
of the preparations for the accession countries or now, just to
sort of say "Well, if we have 10 new members what are the
risks that our enforcement service should be looking out for?"
Did you do any kind of formal appraisal?
Lord Whitty: No. The enforcement
I was referring to was the fact that our own authorities would
have to be vigilant. That would be the port authorities and the
Customs authorities here rather than Defra.
Q203 Chairman: Given that different countries
present potentially different risks, did you do any kind of preparatory
study to see if any of the new members presented any new risks
to animal welfare, animal health, plant health, food purity, etc,
etc, or did you just say "We have got to be vigilant"?
Lord Whitty: No, we supported
and indeed insisted on both the passage of standards and the checking
of the enforcement of those standards across the board. I am not
quite sure what kind of risk assessment we are talking about,
because if we are talking—
Q204 Chairman: For example, if there
was a plant health problem known about in one of the new Member
States, and you said, just for argument's sake, "Poinsettias
from X might come into the United Kingdom, we know there has been
an outbreak of that disease, we have got to keep a particular
eye on that now because, clearly, they can come into the country
so much easier", have you looked across—a tour d'horizon,
I think is the proper term—and said "Right, are there
any particular risks that we must be extra alert for"?
Lord Whitty: Where we are talking
about notifiable plant diseases and animal diseases, then we are
vigilant on all fronts, if it happens in Italy or France, and
we keep an eye out for those poinsettias, or whatever, and in
a couple of places ban them. So it is not an issue which applies
solely to new members; the last few outbreaks of disease have
been in existing members.
Q205 Chairman: I appreciate that. Here
we have got places which are new or could be increasing their
trade, and there are 10 of them, so they are extra. What I am
asking is: was any kind of risk assessment done even to say "There
are no more risks here than from anywhere else"?
Lord Whitty: This was primarily
done through the Commission, as so many of these things are. I
am sure that our vets and plant health people were aware of any
diseases which were prevalent in any of these countries.
Q206 Chairman: Perhaps you might just
like to formally go and ask them because I would like to know
if that was done. You said "I am sure" that they knew,
but you have not conclusively said to the Committee today, now,
"Yes, this exercise . . ."
Lord Whitty: It was not conducted
by the UK, it was conducted by the Commission. Of course, our
experts are some of the more prominent people which the Commission
rely on in the veterinary committee and the plant health committee
and so forth. So that is the way it works.
Q207 Mr Lepper: Can I clarify something
about these inspection posts that we have been talking about a
few moments ago? There was a reference to 22.
Lord Whitty: Twenty-two have been
cleared by the end of last month.
Q208 Mr Lepper: And 37 by Saturday. The
Agra Europe report of 16 April puts it this way: "Only 37
of the 50 Border Inspection Posts that the new states intend to
operate will be up and running by accession. The rest will have
to follow later, creating headaches for traders. One notable example
is the inspection post at Bratislava Airport which Commission
officials said is far from ready to start operations[10]"
Is that, in fact, an accurate assessment of the situation as it
will be as of Saturday?
Lord Whitty: There are some prospective
entry points which have not been cleared yet. I could not give
you the up-to-date picture on Bratislava Airport but there are
some quite important crossing points that were not given clearance
by the Commission. They may be brought up to standard later but
they are certainly not recognised as border posts for intra-EU
trade at this point. Do you know anything about this, Andrew?
Mr Lawrence: Maybe it is the reference
to "headaches for traders". As I said, at the moment
there are 37 they can use and later on there will be more. Maybe
that makes life a bit more complicated for them, and maybe that
is the assessment, but the Commission's view does not necessarily
take account of "headaches for traders" on whether food
safety legislation will be adequately applied after accession.
Their view was that it would be.
Q209 Mr Lepper: Do we have any idea how
long that timescale—"the rest will have to follow later"—is,
before the next 13 are cleared for inspection?
Mr Lawrence: If you want to ask
another question whilst I am checking through for the length of
the transition period.
Mr Lepper: Someone else might wish to
come in.
Q210 Alan Simpson: I think the concern
that is being expressed in the Committee about traceability is
that I think we understand the emphasis that the Government places
on traceability—in a sense, our own history on that—but
what was harder for us to put into place was having been on the
visits to Poland and Hungary we were presented with quite different
scenarios. Hungary probably does have a very effective internal
mechanism for its own monitoring. Both countries have signed up
to the same framework of rules and standards, but in Poland the
message that we got back is that whilst the will was there the
infrastructure was not, and it ties in to the early question that
Joan Ruddock raised that we had several reports given to us that
in relation to GM grain there were claims that grains were being
grown illegally in Poland and just absorbed within their own grain
system, or some were being imported and incorporated into the
system and that with the best will in the world the Government
did not have the mechanism to check. Our claims about traceability
and labelling fall if that cannot be delivered in the countries
that are supplying grains and produce to us. You mentioned the
scrutiny was carried out not by the United Kingdom but by the
Commission. What I wanted to know was how far have you as the
Minister responsible for this within the United Kingdom Government
pressed the Commission to address how adequate the internal scrutiny
systems are in the accession countries so that we are relying
on something more than a lick and a promise?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure whether
this is a general question or a GM question. It sounds as if it
is a general question, and it is true you are right in terms of
your own assessment that the progress towards the standards in
Poland is significantly behind that in certain other accession
countries but that is reflected in the fact that abattoirs and
other premises have not all been cleared for trade into the EU.
Unless they go through a premise which is EU certified they will
not be allowed to export to Germany, Britain or anywhere else.
As far as the general position is concerned then it is the FBO's
inspection and certification process which will control that and
until those premises are upgraded or no longer supply meat or
whatever then there will not be access for them for the whole
EU market. As far as GM is concerned—it is always a difficult
area with GMs—as far as we are aware there is no significant,
apart from research growth of GM in Poland, Polish grown GM. Were
it to be imported in to Poland and repackaged, GM based seed or
cereal, then they are subject to the same traceability and labelling
as if it came from anywhere else and therefore the point of control
ultimately is if you are claiming you are non GM it can be tested
at the market end, so it does not depend on the Polish authorities
having the same degree of accuracy of tracing. Indeed at the moment
there is no need for the Poles to have that degree of accuracy
of testing because there is virtually no GM being grown in Poland.
One recognises that the future on GM may be more difficult than
that but that is not related to Poland it is related to the GM
issue and GM growth and potential of GM growing anywhere in the
European Union.
Q211 Chairman: Mr Lawrence, do you have
an answer about the border posts?
Mr Lawrence: Yes and no. The reason
it was not on my list is because it is not strictly speaking a
transitional period. These 13 BIPs are not operating so they do
not have a transitional amount of time to get themselves ready,
there is no end date. Essentially they will present themselves
to the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office when they think
they are ready and they will be inspected like any other and they
will be operational as soon as they pass the inspection. There
is not a target date for the end of the transitional period because
there is not a transitional period.
Q212 Mr Lepper: They are not considered
essential for the kind of inspection processes we have been concerned
about in our questioning?
Lord Whitty: There could be no
legal trade between them until they are so designated. There would
not be any trade into the EU—
Q213 Mr Lepper: Hence they cause headaches
for traders by the fact they are not there.
Lord Whitty: But not for consumers.
Q214 Paddy Tipping: Can we move to rural
development funding where historically Britain has a very good
base with enlargement. Is the prospect for increasing that percentage
funding going to grow or lessen do you think?
Lord Whitty: The total amount
in Pillar II funding will grow. The British are likely to be able
to benefit from it more under the new rules than they were under
the previous rules, which are largely based on historic take up,
which during the period of a previous administration there was
not much take up and it was fixed on historic levels which regrettably
restrained calling for the RDF because it has match funding, et
cetera. There should be a higher proportion closer to the United
Kingdom's "fair share", i.e. share of the land, agricultural
production or rural population, whichever way you try and measure
it, than was the case in the past. It is also true that a slice
of roughly 15 per cent of Pillar I, CAP 1A expenditure will be
on the accession countries, so they will have a large share and
there will be some competition at the edges between the Brits
getting more of a fair share than them. We should get more of
a fair share than we previously had quite significantly under
the new more flexible rules.
Q215 Paddy Tipping: As a general rule
the entrant countries are more agriculturally based, so the progressive
move from Pillar I to Pillar II, which is the aspiration at the
moment, you do not think there is any chance that is going to
be re-visited because of, in a sense, more strength than a need
to support farmers directly?
Lord Whitty: No, I do not. I think
there are also, partly for the same reason, countries which need
a lot of help for their rural areas outside agriculture in terms
of rural infrastructure, developing non-agricultural enterprises,
and so forth, therefore there is a self interest in the medium
term for the accession countries to want to see a more flexible
non-land or production related form of subsidy which they can
spend in their quite often quite poor rural areas, particularly
in the eastern part of their territory.
Q216 Paddy Tipping: More generally because
the entrant countries are not so strong almost by definition access
to Objective I and Objective II funding from the United Kingdom
is going to decrease, do you not see any prospect of reversing
that?
Lord Whitty: No. That is a separate
issue which is not strictly Defra territory. The replacement of
both structural and cohesion funds as far as the future system
is concerned is likely to mean a significant reduction in the
amount of EU money which goes into most United Kingdom regions.
Treasury have said counter that by expenditure from the United
Kingdom. In terms of the EU budget you are right, a small portion
of that is rurally earmarked and the intention would be that most
of that would in future come through Pillar II and the CAP rather
than through the structural engagement funds, and we will still
have access to that.
Q217 Mr Lazarowicz: Turning to the question
of labour, where there has been quite a bit of debate, to put
it mildly. What is the Department's assessment of how agriculture
in this country is likely to be affected by the Government's position
on access to workers from new Member States?
Lord Whitty: It is difficult to
assess precisely how it will affect agriculture. In one sense
with rising incomes likely demand for agricultural labour within
the accession states and the number of agricultural workers moving
from Slovakia to East Anglia is fairly limited, but it is there,
there will be some movement. What that would domestically replace
is a bit difficult to assess. As we know from previous sessions
there is labour sometimes of dubious legality which is operating
on a casual basis with labour from countries outside of the EU
by and large, some of it highly regulated, for example, through
the SAWS Scheme, some of it non-regulated and run by gangmasters
with varying degrees of respectability. It may be that there would
be some of that East European labour which would begin to replace
some of that labour. It is difficult to see whether agriculture
would necessarily be the most attractive industry for Polish labour
looking for a job in the west to go to. There will probably be
greater rewards in other sectors and greater shortage of labour
in other sectors in the United Kingdom as in the rest of Western
Europe. If they are going for the short-term then I suspect there
will not be huge movements of agricultural labour but there will
be some movement of labour in time.
Q218 Mr Lazarowicz: Has Defra, or indeed
any other department you are aware of, commissioned any research
to examine these issues in more detail and give us a picture of
the numbers involved?
Lord Whitty: We have one particular
issue in relation to Defra and the Home Office, which is the operation
of the SAWS Scheme, which has given special permits for effectively
students—a fairly wide definition—to come on a temporary
basis. Quite a lot of that has now come from what will now be
members of the EU and there is no need for them to go through
that scheme any longer and therefore the effect of that needs
to be taken into account when looking for future recruits into
the SAWS Scheme, taking account of the fact there might be the
equivalent agricultural student from Slovakia who will now be
able to access the labour market as a EU citizen. In the short
term that may reduce the demand for labour else where but also
if there is a shortfall on that and if they do go into agriculture
and they go into catering or construction we have to make up the
fact that they are not providing that amount of labour into the
SAWS Scheme by looking for such labour else where. For those specific
managed migration areas there is an implication for Defra and
Home Office operations. It is actually quite difficult to predict
exactly what would happen because do you not know where the now
legal EU citizen labour wish to go.
Q219 Mr Lazarowicz: Do you have in place
or are you putting in place any measures to monitor what will
happen in this field?
Lord Whitty: As far as the SAWS
Scheme is concerned, yes. We are talking about a much wide-ranging
and not very effectively regulated area, their information is
not particularly easily available in terms of casual labour and
agriculture as a whole, as we discussed when we were discussing
gangmasters a few weeks ago[11]
10 European Policy News, Agra Europe, 16 April
2004, EP/3. Back
11
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Minutes of Evidence,
Tuesday 23 March 2004, Session 2003-04, Gangmasters: follow-up,
HC 455-ii. Back
| 
