2
We commend seafood and meat exporters on their efforts to prepare for the new trading...
Recommendation
We commend seafood and meat exporters on their efforts to prepare for the new trading environment with the EU amidst the covid-19 pandemic, and acknowledge the considerable uncertainty of what they were preparing for. In as much as this uncertainty similarly hampered the Government in what support and guidance it could provide before 1 January, we believe that seafood and meat exporters have not received the standard of support they should have done to allow them to prepare. Guidance was not sufficiently timely, targeted or joined-up. This has especially impacted smaller businesses, many of whom are handling export red tape for the first time. As the case of live bivalve molluscs (LBM) highlighted, Defra should have engaged with exporters more closely, in this case by sharing information it had received from the European Commission allowing the industry to point out that it did not provide the clarity Defra officials thought it did. This resulted in the Government making a mistake in how the Commission would apply the relevant regulations, leading to the industry being compromised when it became clear that exports of LBM from aquaculture in Class B and C water that had not been depurated would be blocked. We believe that the European Commission could and should have taken a more pragmatic approach to the interpretation of these rules. If the Government believes the EU to be legally incorrect, the Government should urgently challenge the European Commission’s stance.
Paragraph Reference
27
Government Response
Acknowledged
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
Commission on the issue of Live Bivalve Molluscs (LBMs). Prior to EU exit, Defra officials examined the Export Health Certificates (EHCs) needed for trade with the EU. Their work concluded that the export of molluscs was legal and that there were certificates in place. It was less clear, however, which certificate should be used. Officials therefore asked for the EU Commission’s opinion and the Commission replied in September 2019. The reply was very plain, agreeing that the appropriate certificate was the one Defra had suggested (Part A of Annex IV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/2008). The exchange therefore confirmed that the trade could continue following the end of the transition period. The Commission’s corroboration was relayed to industry the following month. The correspondence between the CVO and her EU counterparts was not itself made public. It Fourth Special Report of Session 2021–22 3 was a delicate time generally for EU/UK relations, and it is not normal practice to publish such documents. However, we have since published all relevant correspondence in the House of Commons Library. The EU Commission has subsequently amended its legislation effectively to prohibit the import from GB of LBMs from class B waters for the purposes of purification.1 The correctness or otherwise of the Commission’s interpretation of EU legislation as it stood before the Commission amended it is therefore academic; but the amendment is an implicit acknowledgement that, before its amendment, the legislation either did not have the effect for which the Commission now (contrary to its earlier assurances) contends, or at the very least did not achieve that effect in any clear way. We continue to consider our options for challenging the European Union, but any such challenge would of course need to relate to the legislation as amended, not to the Commission’s interpretation of the EU legislation as it stood before the amendment. Now that the EU has ratified the TCA, these discussions will continue in the Specialised Committees.
Source
Report
Eighth Report - Seafood and meat exports to the EU
29 Apr 2021
HC 1189
Timeline
Recommendation age
5.1 yrs
Report published
29 Apr 2021