10 Control of potato cyst nematodes
| (26516)
8399/05
COM(05)151
| Draft Council Directive on the control of potato cyst nematodes
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letters of 2 May and 24 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-i (2005-06), para 13 (4 July 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 11 June 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
10.1 Potato cyst nematodes (PCN) cause considerable yield losses
to the potato crop, and are known to be widespread in certain
areas, including parts of the UK. In the case of ware potatoes,
the risk of spread is low, but a much higher risk arises with
seed potatoes and with certain other crops.[36]
The Community has therefore had in place a range of control measures,[37]
which (among other things) specify that seed potatoes for marketing,
and other plants presenting a risk, should be grown only on uncontaminated
plots; that contaminated seed potatoes must be decontaminated
if they are to be distributed as seed; and that contaminated plots
must be demarcated, with only ware potatoes able to be grown on
them. In addition, the introduction into, and spread within, the
Community of PCN is banned, with measures in place to minimise
the risk by laying down that seed potatoes must come from a field
known to be free, and that plants grown in the open air and intended
for planting must originate in a place known to be free of PCN.
A further Directive on the marketing of seed potatoes (2002/56)
requires that ground used must not be infected by PCN, and that
lots of such potatoes must be free of PCN.
10.2 The Commission says that, since these measures
were introduced, there have been significant developments in knowledge
of the biology of PCN, and it therefore put forward in April 2005
this document proposing that the main control Directive should
be repealed, and replaced by the new measures set out in para
13.2 of our Report of 4 July 2005, aimed in particular at providing
additional protection for seed potatoes and addressing the risks
from other plants. In that Report, we also noted that the Regulatory
Impact Assessment provided by the Government had highlighted the
economic importance of potato production in the UK, and the fact
that PCN is known to be widespread in England and Wales. The Assessment
also suggested that, in so far as the proposal would maintain
or improve controls as regards seed potatoes whilst addressing
other areas of risk, including those from farm-saved seed, there
should be less risk of undetected PCN being spread. It added that,
although the benefits of this depended upon the assumptions made
about the current degree of protection, these could be worth as
much as £27 million, whereas the additional costs falling
on the industry could be up to about £1.2 million (though
the testing costs incurred by the Government would increase from
£200,000 to around £800,000).
10.3 We were also told that the main aim of the proposal
was to improve protection in areas of the Community which remained
uninfested, but that this inevitably involved a balancing act,
a key concern being whether the balance proposed was right for
the UK. Furthermore, the impact of the proposal differed in the
various parts of the UK, in that enhanced soil testing could provide
additional benefits in Scotland and Northern Ireland (where seed
potato exports are significant), but that the problem of fruit
and bulb growers being dependent on potato-growing land was not
so significant as in England and Wales.
10.4 We commented that the benefits of this proposal
seemed to outweigh the costs, but that its impact was by no means
straightforward. Consequently, although we were not at that stage
minded to recommend a debate, we felt it would be premature to
clear the proposal, pending the results of a cost-benefit analysis
being prepared, and any additional information which might arise
from the further consultations which the Government was holding.
Subsequent developments
10.5 We have since received a number of letters from
the Ministers responsible for this issue from time to time. One,
dated 21 October 2005, said that a cost-benefit analysis had concluded
that over a 20 year period the proposal would in fact have a negative
net present value in the UK, ranging from -£7 million to
-£29 million, and that the position for the Community as
a whole remained unclear, in that the Commission had not carried
out an Impact Assessment. A further letter on 20 December 2005
said that, following pressure from the then UK Presidency, such
an assessment had been provided. This had identified a number
of key issues, and a subsequent discussion had shown that there
was strong support from Member States for the proposal, although
there was also some recognition of the varied situation which
existed across the Community, both in terms of the incidence of
PCN and the impact of the measures proposed.
10.6 Further letters detailed the attempts made by
successive Presidencies to progress matters, and we eventually
received from the Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker)
a letter of 2 May 2007, indicating that the German Presidency
had produced the previous month a draft compromise text which
incorporated all substantive UK points (including, most importantly,
alternative procedures for soil sampling). The Minister added
that, although the new Directive was not the UK's preferred approach,
it had been a major achievement to secure an outcome which was
"justified and proportionate", and which was evidence-based,
despite strong opposition from those Member States which wanted
to see enhanced measures, almost irrespective of the cost-benefit
ratio or the scientific rationale. However, he also cautioned
that, despite this, the measure would inevitably involve additional
resource implications for Government and the industry, and that,
although costs incurred by his department are not currently charged
to industry, this policy was under consideration as part of a
general review of charging for plant health.
10.7 After, we had considered this letter at our
meeting on 9 May 2007, our Chairman replied, saying that we had
found it difficult, on a highly technical proposal such as this,
to assess the significance of the sort of detailed changes which
had been made, and asking whether the Government could put a figure
on the expected benefits, what additional costs the industry would
face, and what impact the measure would have in the different
parts of the UK.
10.8 These points have been addressed in a further
letter from the Minister, dated 24 May 2007. He says that, under
the revised proposal, the range of net present values under the
cost-benefit analysis now lie between -£7 million and +£7
million, resulting from the reduction in the spread of PCN on
to clean land once the measures in question came into effect and
the impact on industry. In the latter case, the Minister says
that the proposal would increase his department's laboratory costs
by about £50,000, and that there would also be a need for
about 0.5 additional staff per year within the Plant Health and
Seeds Inspectorate (PHSI) in order to implement the new soil sampling
and testing regime. He adds that no decision has been taken yet
on whether or not these costs should continue to be absorbed by
the department, but that, if the policy were to change, growers
would be charged at the standard PHSI rate (currently £81
per hour), and that, in England and Wales, about 80 seed potato
growers would be subject to these new requirements.
10.9 The Minister concludes by saying that, within
the UK as a whole, the challenge has been to find a solution which
protects the position of a wide spectrum of interests. He adds
that, whilst the original proposal, containing very onerous soil
sampling requirements for seed potato growers, as well as substantial
burdens on ware potato growers and plant/bulb growers, would have
been very difficult to implement, the revised proposal is more
proportionate. In particular, it provides additional assurances
in relation to seed potato land, but through a more realistic
soil sampling regime, whilst plant and bulb growers will largely
be exempt from official control, and ware potato producers —
although still subject to official control — are unlikely
to be affected by any new burdens. In short, he believes that
the revised proposal addresses previous concerns about the impact
in different parts of the UK, and he stresses that the outcome
is far better than could originally have been envisaged, given
the initial position of the Commission and other Member States.
Conclusion
10.10 As the Minister has acknowledged, this proposal
is both highly technical and complex. Consequently, we have found
it more difficult than usual to assess its implications and those
of the changes which have now been made to it, and we have therefore
had to rely to a considerable extent on the Government's own assessment.
However, in addition to the most recent (and more favourable)
cost-benefit analysis, we have noted the Minister's view that
the scale of the additional resources required — whether
provided by DEFRA, or passed on to growers — is relatively
limited, and that there will be consequential benefits to the
industry through the protection of clean land and a reduction
in potato yield losses. On balance, therefore, we believe that
our initial feeling that a debate was not necessary was correct,
and we are accordingly now clearing the document.
36 Such as soft fruit and bulbs, which can transmit
infection through contaminated soil. Back
37
Notably the so-called Control Directive (69/465) and the Plant
Health Directive (2000/29) Back
|
