Select Committee on European Legislation Tenth Report


TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES: CONTROLS ON CATTLE, SHEEP AND GOATS


1. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of further information from the Government. We maintain our opinion[2] that it raises questions of legal and political importance, and continue to make no recommendation for its further consideration at this stage:-

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(17713) SEC(96)2300 Draft Council Decision on the exclusion from human food and animal feed of specified risk material as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies

Legal base: Decision to refer to Council under Article 17 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC following failure to reach decision in the Standing Veterinary Committee.
      Background

      1.1  We considered this proposal on 11 December on the basis of an Explanatory Memorandum, as the official text was not then available. The proposal was to prohibit certain tissues from sheep and goats from the food chain on the grounds that no Member State or Third Country could demonstrate freedom from all transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Action would be required in all Member States and also on all imports into the Community. The Minister said that the proposal went beyond the current UK legislation in relation to sheep and goats, but gave no indication was given of the cost to the industry of compliance, or of the practicability of enforcement.

      1.2  We raised a number of points with the Government, including the legal procedure for the proposal's adoption. The proposal had gone to the Council only because there had been no agreement in the Standing Veterinary Committee. We judged that a proposal put directly to the Council under Article 43 would have been more appropriate, because the Commission considered that the main requirement for the measure was to introduce uniform rules throughout the Community in order to safeguard the single market for cattle, sheep and goats. We raised questions on the justification for the measures, which went further than the scientific advice from the SEAC Committee[3]. We also queried whether the powers were strictly necessary, in that no cases of "BSE" in sheep or goats had yet been detected in a natural environment; and we queried the practicabilities of enforcement, and the cost.

      The Government's views

      1.3  In a letter of 16 December 1996 the Minister of State, Mr Baldry told us that the Government intended to support the Commission proposal for Community-wide controls at the Council on 16-17 December. His letter did not, however, deal with the questions we raised, other than to say that "our legal experts have considered the points you made in relation to the legal basis for the decision and they are satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed as provided for in Community law". He assured us that he would respond on the detailed points on enforcement and costs as soon as possible. He also undertook to deposit the text of the proposal for the Council's decision, which has now been done.

      1.4  In a further letter of 14 January 1997, the Minister of State reports that the Council failed to agree on the proposal, which was rejected by a simple majority. He indicates that the Commission is considering making further proposals which would go for "Commission decision" and would come to the Council only if the Standing Veterinary Committee failed once again to agree. He stated that his legal experts considered that Commission action was appropriate because other Member States had adopted unilateral measures against imports. It is not however clear whether measures relating to imports from Third Countries (as covered by the proposed Council decision) should be treated in the same way as matters relating to the internal market. The Minister's letter does not deal with the other points raised by us.

      Conclusion

      1.5  At the time of the December Council on 16-17 December we had a number of questions outstanding on this proposal, relating to the legal procedures, and to the justification, practicability and enforcement of the measures. The Minister's letter of 16 December responded only on the legal point. Although the Council rejected the proposal, it is clear that the matter is still in play and may well come back to the Council if and when the Commission puts forward a further proposal. We are still waiting for answers to our questions on enforcement and costs, and are not clearing the document at this stage.


2  (17713) SEC(96)2300; see HC 36-vii (1996-97), paragraph 3 (11 December 1996).  Back

3  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) is an expert committee which advises UK Ministers. Back


 


© Parliamentary copyright 1997
Prepared 31 January 1997