Jim Paice says no legal basis for egg trade ban

A UK ban on imports of illegal eggs and egg products from 1 January, when the EU ban on conventional cages supposedly takes effect, is not a legal option, DEFRA farming minister Jim Paice has insisted.

Addressing MPs in a Westminster debate on Tuesday (13 December), he said he had taken detailed advice from both his own officials and Brussels, and found there was no legal basis for such a ban.

The EU commission had suggested as much last October when it told EU agriculture ministers an intra-community trade ban on eggs from conventional cages was not legally possible – and also warned member states not to do so individually.

Since then, DEFRA had taken its own legal advice and reached a similar conclusion, said Mr Paice.

Reading from a text, he explained that: “The treaty on the functioning of the EU prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports between member states with limited exceptions including where these are necessary on animal health or human health grounds.

“The advice we have received is that it is extremely unlikely a court would extend those exceptions to animal welfare grounds in these circumstances.”

But this view was challenged by Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee chairwoman Anne McIntosh, who believed the government’s advice was “flawed”.

She quoted from a letter the committee had received from EU health commissioner John Dalli as recently as 30 November which said: “Concerning unilateral action, member states are responsible for the enforcement of EU law. They have the power and the duty to keep products produced illegally off their markets.”

Miss McIntosh suggested the Welfare of Laying Hens Directive itself gave the government the power to introduce a unilateral trade ban. “It is not for food manufacturers, processors or retailers to police this,” she said.

But Mr Paice again disputed the suggestion. “The commissioner has been through this over and over again,” he told the MPs. “I’ve had meetings with him and I’ve had meetings with others as well. He is absolutely adamant there is no power available to him or member states to introduce a ban in the way she advocates.”

Mr Paice went on to explain the problems of traceability, which, he said was “right at the heart of the issue”.

While the EU egg marketing regulations insisted that Class A eggs (shell eggs) carried a mark with both the producer number and method of production, (Code 3 for cage egg), there was no such requirement for Class B eggs, intended for processing.

“Therefore there is no traceability,” he said. “If you were to introduce a ban, we would have to introduce a ban on all non-Grade A eggs and on all powder and/or liquid egg. We could not differentiate (between egg from conventional and enriched cages). Because of that we would have been accused of a discriminatory approach and in breach of the legislation.”

In a sometimes tetchy exchange, Mr Paice also took a swipe at Miss McIntosh and the British Egg Industry Council, which has previously accused the minister of “chickening out”.

“I strongly resent and reject accusations that I’ve done nothing – as my right honourable friend has suggested – and I reject the hysterical comments made by those who allegedly represent the industry – they are neither constructive nor indeed factual in a number of cases.”

Got a view on this story? Then why not comment below or visit our Poultry Platform discussion forum?