House of Commons - European legislation

Select Committee on European Legislation First Report

SIMPLIFICATION OF DIRECTIVES ON FOOD

10. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum. We maintain our opinion[18] that it raises questions of political importance, but again make no recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:--

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

(17293)
8164/96
COM(96)722 --   Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption

--   Proposal for a Council Directive relating to certain sugars intended for human consumption

--   Proposal for a Council Directive relating to honey

--   Proposal for a Council Directive relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption

--   Proposal for a Council Directive relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption

--   Proposal for a Council Directive relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts

--   Proposal for a Council Directive relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and chestnut purée intended for human consumption

Legal base: Article 43; and 100a; co-decision; qualified majority voting (but see paragraph 10.3.)

Background
10.1  Following the December 1992 European Summit in Edinburgh, the Commission undertook to simplify proposals relating to a number of "vertical"[19] food directives to ensure that they contained only the minimum necessary for inter-Community trade purposes. However, the proposals now under consideration do not represent simplification and the Commission has used the opportunity to seek an Advisory Committee procedure in the place of the present arrangements which require a majority vote from the Scientific Committee on foodstuffs (or, failing, that a qualified majority from the Council). When we first saw the proposals, we queried this particular aspect and sought the Government's views. The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 23 October now before us deals with this point.

Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum

10.2  The Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs Browning) states:

"The Government is opposed to the procedure contained in the proposals. Firstly, it is questionable whether the Commission may amend Council Directives in the way proposed. The Treaty refers to implementing powers for the Commission. Secondly, future changes to the Directives could have significant economic and trading impacts on the industries concerned. The Government will, therefore, propose in negotiations that alternative, more regulatory, procedures be considered."

10.3  A further point which has come to light is that the seven areas in which the Commission is proposing changes have seven different legal bases. Five of them could be dealt with under Article 43 which does not require the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament; the other two, on cocoa and coffee, could be dealt with under Article 100a, which does.

Conclusion

10.4  We note that the Government has now given a clear indication of its views on the Commission proposal to use Advisory Committee Procedure. We understand this is part of a long running disagreement between the Commission and the Council, and that it is likely to be resolved by maintaining the status quo; namely, that any changes would need to receive a majority vote from the Scientific Committee on foodstuffs, or, failing that, a qualified majority from the Council.

10.5  We understand that the handling of the seven proposals is under discussion and that it could be split into two parts; the first dealing with proposals subject to Article 43 procedures which do not involve co-decision with the European Parliament; the remainder which would come under Article 100a would require co-decision. We would see merit in splitting the proposals since the co-decision process is a lengthy one and the issues to be considered for those products coming under Article 43 are best dealt with in the forum in which they are normally discussed. We also think it would be an unfortunate precedent if the simpler decision-making process under Article 43 were to be replaced by the more elaborate one for co-decision as a result of the Commission sweeping up a miscellany of directives.

10.6  In view of the uncertainty that still remains on the handling of these proposals, we are maintaining our view that they are of political importance and are still not clearing them.

18. (17293) 8164/96; see HC 51-xxvi (1995-96), paragraph 5 (17 July 1996). Back
19. Vertical Directives lay down specifications for a particular foodstuff, such as chocolate; horizontal directives lay down general rules, for example on labelling, that extend across a wide range of foodstuffs. Back

(17293) 8164/96 COM(96)722	--	Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption
	--	Proposal for a Council Directive relating to certain sugars intended for human consumption
	--	Proposal for a Council Directive relating to honey
	--	Proposal for a Council Directive relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption
	--	Proposal for a Council Directive relating to certain partly or wholly dehydrated preserved milk for human consumption
	--	Proposal for a Council Directive relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts
	--	Proposal for a Council Directive relating to fruit jams, jellies and marmalades and chestnut purée intended for human consumption
Legal base:	Article 43; and 100a; co-decision; qualified majority voting (but see paragraph 10.3.)
	Background 10.1 Following the December 1992 European Summit in Edinburgh, the Commission undertook to simplify proposals relating to a number of "vertical"[19] food directives to ensure that they contained only the minimum necessary for inter-Community trade purposes. However, the proposals now under consideration do not represent simplification and the Commission has used the opportunity to seek an Advisory Committee procedure in the place of the present arrangements which require a majority vote from the Scientific Committee on foodstuffs (or, failing, that a qualified majority from the Council). When we first saw the proposals, we queried this particular aspect and sought the Government's views. The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 23 October now before us deals with this point. Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum 10.2 The Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs Browning) states: "The Government is opposed to the procedure contained in the proposals. Firstly, it is questionable whether the Commission may amend Council Directives in the way proposed. The Treaty refers to implementing powers for the Commission. Secondly, future changes to the Directives could have significant economic and trading impacts on the industries concerned. The Government will, therefore, propose in negotiations that alternative, more regulatory, procedures be considered." 10.3 A further point which has come to light is that the seven areas in which the Commission is proposing changes have seven different legal bases. Five of them could be dealt with under Article 43 which does not require the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament; the other two, on cocoa and coffee, could be dealt with under Article 100a, which does. Conclusion 10.4 We note that the Government has now given a clear indication of its views on the Commission proposal to use Advisory Committee Procedure. We understand this is part of a long running disagreement between the Commission and the Council, and that it is likely to be resolved by maintaining the status quo; namely, that any changes would need to receive a majority vote from the Scientific Committee on foodstuffs, or, failing that, a qualified majority from the Council. 10.5 We understand that the handling of the seven proposals is under discussion and that it could be split into two parts; the first dealing with proposals subject to Article 43 procedures which do not involve co-decision with the European Parliament; the remainder which would come under Article 100a would require co-decision. We would see merit in splitting the proposals since the co-decision process is a lengthy one and the issues to be considered for those products coming under Article 43 are best dealt with in the forum in which they are normally discussed. We also think it would be an unfortunate precedent if the simpler decision-making process under Article 43 were to be replaced by the more elaborate one for co-decision as a result of the Commission sweeping up a miscellany of directives. 10.6 In view of the uncertainty that still remains on the handling of these proposals, we are maintaining our view that they are of political importance and are still not clearing them.



© Parliamentary copyright 1996	Prepared 12th November 1996