Agriculture Minister Jim Paice says he wants a blanket ban on the export of eggs and egg products from any European Union member state that fails to meet the deadline for the EU’s ban on conventional laying cages.
The ban is due to come into force on January 1 next year, but whilst the UK is expected to be ready for the new rules some 30 per cent of hens in other EU countries may still be in conventional cages when the regulations change. It is feared that these birds may be allowed to continue in production. If that happens the UK egg industry has been demanding an intra-EU trade ban to prevent ’illegal’ eggs being exported to Britain. Jim Paice now seems to have gone further by demanding an export ban on whole states rather than just on non-compliant producers.
He made his position clear whilst giving evidence to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is holding its own inquiry into the implications of the cage ban. The Minister said, "What we want to see within Europe is an intra-community ban, so that any countries that have not converted should be banned from exporting their eggs out of their own country. That is the best way of ensuring that our producers, and indeed those in other countries who have made the investment, are not undercut."
He was pressed by one committee member on whether he wanted such bans to apply to whole states. The member said, "There are obviously shell eggs, liquid and powdered, but of course there are also food products that come into the United Kingdom pre-made. Would you see a ban being first of all on a member state basis, rather than on the basis of individual producers within a nation state? For argument’s sake, let’s use Poland, because we know that they have indicated that they have some concerns. Would you see it being Polish eggs and Polish products, or certain producers within Poland? Assuming it is member states, would you see it as being a shell ban, a liquid ban, a powder ban or a cake and quiche ban?"
The Minister was clear in his response. "First, yes, I do see it as a member state issue, because that puts pressure on the member state to put pressure on its own producers who have not made the investment. In the case of Poland, as far as I can understand, quite a lot have made the investment, and therefore that pressure should be on those that have not. I think if you made it on a producer basis, it would be very difficult to police and enforce. It has to be on a member state basis, and it would apply to any egg or egg product."
On the issue of imports from food manufacturers he was less sure. "Whether it would extend to prepared food, such as your quiches, to be frank I have not thought of that issue. I am not aware that we import quiche from Poland, but perhaps we do. But no, it is a serious point, and I am afraid I do not have a direct answer to it. Logically you are right, it should be anything that contains an egg product. But do not forget that one of the difficulties with that is, of course, that we do import egg product, particularly powdered and some liquid, from outside the EU, and of course the ban does not affect those countries, so in theory there would be nothing to stop a country importing egg powder from, say, the USA, and then using it for baking, so it might be quite difficult to enforce that one." Under World Trade Organisation rules a country is not allowed to bar imports on grounds of animal welfare. Some critics argue that this, in itself, undermines any attempt by the EU to impose higher animal welfare regulations.
Those in the industry who are seeking a separate labelling code for any eggs that continue to be produced in conventional cages after the ban would have been disappointed to hear the Minister’s views on this issue. He told the committee that he agreed with the European Commission’s view that non-compliant eggs should not be marked at all once the ban was in force. "It seems odd to me that you should be suggesting you label something that is unlawful. Are people willingly going to put a label on an egg that says ’This is an unlawful egg?’" said the Minister.
It was suggested to him that without such labelling, eggs on sites where both enriched and non-enriched units operated could become mixed. He said, "Trying to enforce accuracy in that situation, in my view, would be a fool’s errand. I think we should say there should only be eggs from enriched cages on the market, and we have to move towards making sure that the others do not come on to the international European market, at least." He added, "That is why, I am afraid, in my view, the rules have to apply to the member state, not the producer or the individual unit."
Members of the committee had earlier heard from two representatives of the European Commission Directorate General Health and Consumer Policy (DG SANCO). The two representatives, Joanna Darmanin, head of cabinet and Dr Harry Vassallo, member of cabinet, came in for some tough questioning from committee members who displayed their frustration at the behaviour of some member states. The Commission has said that it has so far been unable to obtain sufficient information from certain countries about their readiness and their plans for complying with the cage ban.
"The data we have are patchy, and there are some data that are reliable, but others where we have, I have to say, gaps, or where the data that we have requested are not exactly comparable," Joanna Darmanin told the committee.
She confirmed that four member states had given either incomplete data or no data at all. All had been set a deadline of April 1 to provide the necessary information, but committee chairman Anne McIntosh displayed her suspicion that the Commission would have little power to enforce this deadline.
"You have no power other than diplomatically chivvying them along?" asked the chairman.
"We have no power because the onus to send us the figures will rest with the member state, and we keep pushing the member states to give up those figures and hope that they do so after 1 April," said Joanna Darmanin.
"And there is no penalty that you can imagine if they do not provide those figures by 1 April?" asked the chairman.
"No. I suppose the penalties would be more in terms of what happens after the compliance comes into force as of 1 January," was the reply.
Another committee member, Neil Parish, said, "The egg production takes about 13 months from the time you put the hens into cages or whatever until the end of that production. Being quite blunt with you, don’t you think you are asking for these figures far too late, for the simple reason that a lot of that production is going to go on well into next year if all those hens are being put into unenriched cages? There are no data from France here; we have a huge amount of Polish eggs still being produced in unenriched cages, and you state quite clearly that you do not normally act on welfare. I would suggest this is competition, because if you have lower standards of welfare you also have lower costs, and that is what worries farmers. Not only is it bad for the hen for welfare, it is also anti-competition, and the single market does not work properly. My very direct question to you is: why haven’t you asked for these data a lot sooner? If you are not going to get the data until later on this year, you cannot stop that production by the time you get to January 2012."
Joanna Darmanin said, "We have repeatedly asked for the data. This issue has been discussed, I think, every so often in the Standing Committee. They give us some data; then again they are not good enough, so you cannot compare. Now what we have done is sent a specific questionnaire so that we get exactly the same data from the member states so that we can compare and see where the targets are, including the action plan on how they intend to be in compliance."
The EU representatives were asked whether it would be possible for member states to ban the importation of eggs from other member states unilaterally if they failed to meet the deadline for the cage ban. Joanna Darmanin said this was an issue that lawyers were considering. She indicated that this was action that could be taken if there was a risk of public health, but it was not something that had been done on the grounds of non-compliance with animal welfare regulations.
The question of whether the United Kingdom could act unilaterally to prevent ’illegal’ eggs entering the country was also raised during Jim Paice’s evidence to the committee. He said that the Government and its officials were exerting all the pressure they could on the Commission to take action. Other EU countries who had taken the steps necessary to comply with the ban were doing the same, but he added, "I am perfectly conscious that if the worst comes to the worst, and action from a European level is not forthcoming, we will have to think about what we do after that, but at the moment, with nine months to go, I am determined to press the Commission to do the job that I think they are required to do."
"A unilateral ban?" asked Neil Parish.
"I am not going to be drawn on that," said the Minister.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s decision to hold its own inquiry into the EU’s ban on conventional cages came after the UK egg industry organised a lobby at Westminster to brief MPs on what was happening on the continent. It has voiced strong concerns that ’illegal’ egg could find its way into the UK and unfairly undercut law-abiding British egg producers if conventional cage production is allowed to continue in certain states next year.
The House of Commons committee set out to examine a number of specific issues surrounding the ban. One was the implications of the EU directive for the egg production, food processing and manufacturing sector. Another was how the European Commission planned to ensure compliance. The committee also said it wanted to examine Defra’s support for the egg and egg products industry.
