Container inspection at port of entry

The BBC’s Fake Britain series was not produced to make a contribution to the debate on options for UK trade once we leave the EU. However, this latest episode, which shows the identification, inspection and eventual rejection by the Port Health Officer at Southampton of a distinctly dodgy container, consisting mostly of food products  from China, contains a number of incidental details of great importance to this subject which will be  exercising the minds of government ministers and civil servants in the coming months.

Anyone interested in the subject of how trade passing through our ports is regulated should watch the  first ten minutes of  this episode while it is still available on the BBC website. (You will need a valid TV licence)

The first thing which strikes anyone watching this programme is the huge volume of containers handled at this port – 1.3 million per year. Southampton is a port of entry for goods from outside the EU and thus a first line of defence against risks to public health, not only for the UK but for the whole of the EU.

The officials are first drawn to examine the container because its documentation is incorrect. Then on inspection, the contents of the container are not the same as those on the packing list.

The Port Health Officer remarks that there is no EU-approved manufacturer for one of the meat products. People often say “China has no free trade agreement with the EU”. This is true enough but China has many agreements with the EU about mutually recognised standards of quality and traceability for different classes of product, approved manufacturers etc.

These agreements are mostly registered with the UN rather than the WTO. Many commentators discussing the trade issue have overlooked them, continuing to believe that tariffs are the main or sole barriers to trade.  China’s trade with the EU is therefore dependent on far more than “WTO rules” about tariffs alone.

These Mutual Recognition agreements are critical. If they did not exist, every single container from China would have to be inspected individually for compliance with EU standards – a  hugely expensive and very onerous task given the volume of trade.

The legal compliance and safety of goods made and circulated within the EU rests on the common regulations enforced by each member state and certified in the documents accompanying each container. If these are all in order, containers from member states cannot usually be detained for inspection when crossing EU borders. That is the effect of the Single Market. Trade moves very much more easily. For this reason, there are very few BIPs (Border Inspection Posts) at ports which mostly handle trade from one EU country to another.

If the UK were to leave the EU without a comprehensive agreement on maintaining the mutual recognition of the standards (with which we already comply), then our trade with the EU would be gravely handicapped. Relying solely on basic “WTO rules” means that every container would have to be inspected. Some people have advocated “WTO rules” – saying “Better no agreement at all than a bad agreement”. As far as we know, no other country relies on this sort of trade relationship with the EU.

Photo by Robert.Pittman

Photo by Robert.Pittman

Print Friendly

3 comments

  1. Andrew ChapmanReply

    Under the New Legislative Framework of 2008, which covers 20 EU product safety directives/regulations, the ‘Controls of products entering the Community market’ is regulated by Section 3 of Regulation 765/2008. Products are checked on a sampling basis, on the basis of risk analysis. The operation in the UK is run by a Single Point of Contact, hosted by Suffolk Trading Standards (because of its own responsibility for consumer goods entering at the Port of Felixstowe). The SPoC sends alerts to the Ports and Border Teams, based on risk profiles of both specific products and specific economic operators.

    So the sampling approach is inherent in the EU’s legislation and is not dependent on mutual recognition agreements. See eg http://bit.ly/2dbsnZ8

    Andrew

  2. Andrew ChapmanReply

    I should add that my remarks above concern non-agricultural products. It looks like the same is true of food imports (‘the actual checks carried out are determined on a risk basis’) – although I would imagine that there might well be a higher rate of sampling: http://bit.ly/2cwVZO0

    Andrew

  3. Edward SpaltonReply

    Andrew,

    Thank you for the information.
    The point I was making is that goods produced within the EU are rendered acceptable for free circulation
    within it by compliance with the EU-wide standards, enforced by the authorities within each member state.
    Unless there is very good reason to think that there is some failure of enforcement, properly documented EU goods are not generally detained with inspection or further testing at national borders. That is the
    essence of the Single Market. If the UK just left the EU, our goods would be “Third country” origin. Unless
    a Mutual Recognition Agreement had been arranged beforehand, they would need to be individually inspected to ensure their conformity and fitness for free circulation within the EU.

    A great deal of assessment of risk arises from intelligence sharing between customs services, local authorities and health authorities both within the EU and worldwide. Nowadays this is also related to security and anti terrorist precautions. The volume of trade is such that it would be (to put it mildly) highly inconvenient to to have to inspect more than a small percentage of containers individually. So pre-notification of shipments from outside is a vital part of enabling a risk assessment to be made.
    Increasingly this process is covered by agreements with a global reach. They come to us in the form of EU Directives, Regulations and Decisions and an independent Britain would need to be fully and directly part of them before exiting the EU, if our trade is to continue smoothly and seamlessly.

    I think you would find the Brexit Monographs on this website of considerable interest.

    Regards

    Edward Spalton

Leave a comment