Non-food Exports: EU Powers (Hansard, 16 July 1996)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, Community controls on exports are principally governed by the EC's common commercial policy. The Community might seek to ban the export of non-food products from the EU, but we are not aware that it has ever done so on health and safety grounds.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which is somewhat disconcerting because it appears to indicate that there is a theoretical possibility that the Commission could ban the export of motor cars, machine tools or electrical goods if they were thought to be dangerous on health and safety grounds. Does the noble Baroness agree that the right of the Commission to interfere with the external trade of member states—as distinct from intra-Community trade—is nowhere mentioned in the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty, which seems to indicate that the beef ban must have been brought in through the back door in some unexplained 739 way? If, as is theoretically possible, the European Court of Justice eventually rules that the ban has been illegal all along, can the noble Baroness say whether British farmers and taxpayers will be compensated directly or indirectly by the other 14 member states?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, certainly this is an area of great complexity. There is no doubt that under Article 3(o) of the treaty there is reference to the high level of health protection. I can read out the exact words if the noble Lord wishes. It is right that there should be health protection. What is wrong is where the health protection is extended into areas which should be those of national competence. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows, that is where we have objected very strongly. As regards the noble Lord's second question about compensation should the ECJ find the action of the other 14 member states to have been illegal, I do not believe that that is going to be the outcome although the noble Lord will know that at the present time we are awaiting information. There is no procedure that I know of for compensation to be paid. But it is certainly a very interesting legal point. I shall take much interest in looking into it.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the European Court of Justice is beginning to take on the aspect more of a political court than a court of law as we would understand it in this country?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am well aware that that is the view of many. But the point is that the ECJ has a responsibility which is defined in law. On occasions it has sought to go beyond what we believe to be right. That is why we have made the suggestion that the IGC should look into what should go before the ECJ and what should not.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many people are extremely worried by what she has just said? Does it mean that the European Union can ban any goods or produce from this country going to another country which is quite prepared to accept them? If that is so, have we not really lost our sovereignty?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, we have not lost our sovereignty. The noble Lord seeks to embroider a situation which is not that unclear, although it is complicated. Article 113 is the main basis on which an export might be banned, but it is possible that powers under other articles of the treaty or in subordinate legislation adopted under those articles might be sought. It all depends on the goods in question or the aim of the prohibition. If goods are unsafe I would have thought that it was not in the interests either of the company producing them or of the industry in this country that they should be freely allowed into the market. So there is some sense in this although the noble Lord may find it hard to accept. We have to make sure that there is balance 740 and common sense applied in this matter. It is in those instances where we believe that scientific evidence is not being fully used to inform decisions that we have protested. That is why I believe that there has to be another look taken at the way in which the ECJ works on these matters.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, when my noble friend comes to examine the second supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will she also consider whether it might be possible for the Luxembourg Court not just to fine the 14 other countries but to fine the Commission itself?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. I am not sure that it is one that will bear much fruit, but I shall look at it.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, can the Minister confirm the position as I understand it, which is that there may be a theoretical argument which says that such a ban on non-food products might be imposed whereas in fact for the past 40 years the Community has had the common sense not to do that?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, that is absolutely right. If substances are dangerous, such as those which are subject to Regulation 2455/92 which relates to hazardous chemicals, member states must implement the importing country's decisions. However, that does not usually relate to products that are manufactured or used within the Community. It usually applies where those substances pass from a third country, through a Community country, and onward. That is why we need to take some care in making the sort of comments that are often made in relation to legislation to which we can fully sign up because it is in the interests of the protection of the health and safety of our people as well as of those in 14 other member states.