Food Exports (Hansard, 2 March 1994)

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions have been received by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise from commission auditors in respect of the examining of food exports entered at any particular port; and if he will make a statement.

§ Sir John Cope
Commission auditors produced a report following their visit to United Kingdom Customs in January 1993. Although satisfied with the number of examinations carried out on food exports, they were not satisfied with the depth and rigour of examinations. After considering the auditor's report, Customs issued more detailed guidance to staff on the standards to be observed when carrying out CAP examinations.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for the practice of Her Majesty's Customs requiring 5 per cent. of goods exported under the common agricultural policy and clearance through ports have to be examined by completely offloading the goods from the container; what ports this applies to; what consultations have been held with food exporters in this and what delays are imposed by it; and if he will make a statement.

§ Sir John Cope
[holding answer 1 March 1994]: In a move to combat fraud against Community funds, all EC Customs authorities are required under Council regulation 386/90 to examine a minimum of 5 per cent. of goods on which a claim to common agricultural policy export refunds is made. This procedure applies to all ports.
Officers must satisfy themselves as to the description, quality and quantity of the goods by checking representative parts of the load. Goods need be offloaded from the container only when they are packed in such a way that officers cannot otherwise gain access to all parts of the load. In their 1993 report, Commission auditors criticised Customs for failing to carry out export examinations in sufficient depth.
To guard against the risk that export refunds might in future not be reimbursed from EC funds customs recently reviewed their guidance to officers on the standard of examinations. This has led to the prospect of more goods being offloaded for examination than was the case last year. If exporters wish to reduce the likelihood of goods being examined at ports, they may apply for authorisation for local export control, under which the 5 per cent. examinations are undertaken at the exporter's own premises.
Consultation with trade representatives on procedures for the control of CAP export goods takes place on a continuing basis. I have agreed to meet trade representatives to discuss their concerns over the more rigorous examination procedures.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what charges are made by customs at Felixstowe and other ports for mandatory examination of food passing through the ports under the common agricultural policy; and how many sailings have been missed at Felixstowe because of this requirement since its introduction.

§ Sir John Cope
[holding answer 1 March 1994]: Customs make no charges at Felixstowe, or any other ports, for mandatory examinations. The question of 704W recovery of costs incurred in customs examinations is between the port authority and the exporter. Up to 11 February, six consignments are said to have missed their boat at Felixstowe in 1994 because of Customs examinations. In each case customs had notified that the consignment was required for examination within four hours of receipt of the documents. Subsequent delays in production of the consignment to customs—in one of the cases amounting to seven days—may have contributed to missed sailings.

§ Mr. Austin Mitchell
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations EC auditors made on their recent visit to examine the process of mandatory examination of food exports under the common agricultural policy; what representations he has made about these recommendations; and how he intends to implement them.

§ Sir John Cope
[holding answer 1 March 1994]: As part of the European Community fight against fraud, Commission auditors check that member states are properly carrying out their obligations under Community regulations. If they are not satisfied they may prevent the reimbursement from Community funds of refunds paid by member states to exporters. In the case of the United Kingdom, the auditors made it clear following their 1993 audit that significant disallowance would follow if customs' examination standards were not immediately improved.
I am advised that the auditors' findings in the United Kingdom were reflected elsewhere in the Community and, as a result, the Commission has reminded all member states of the standards that should be achieved. Customs have reviewed their guidance to officers in order to improve the quality and depth of CAP export examinations.