3. We have given further
consideration to the following on the basis of further information
from the Government. We maintain our opinion[7]
that it raises questions of political importance, and continue
to make no recommendation for its further consideration at this
stage:-
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,
FISHERIES AND FOOD
(15128)
4168/94
COM(93)698
| Draft Directive amending and updating Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 43; qualified majority voting.
|
Background
3.1 Proposals on health
problems affecting intra-Community trade in cattle and pigs were
debated in European Standing Committee A on 25 May 1994. Subsequent
changes in the requirement for a cattle database[8]
were debated in European Standing Committee A on 13 November 1996.
The proposals were to have gone to the 16-17 December 1996 Agriculture
Council for decision. However, at a late stage, changes were
made to three aspects of the proposal. The first would require
all those States to have implemented central databases for cattle
and pigs by 31 December 1999, regardless of whether Member States
operated the optional network system envisaged in the original
proposal. The database for pigs would require additional details,
including registration number of the holding or herd of origin
and the number of health certificates where applicable, and the
registration number of the last holding or herd the pig had been
on (for animals imported from third countries, the holding of
importation). The cost of setting up a mandatory system was estimated
at £3 million to £5 million in Great Britain with annual
running costs of around £2 million.[9]
3.2 Changes were also
made to allow for export of animals from Spain only, which would
allow trade in animals for slaughter from herds which were not
"officially disease-free".
3.3 Despite these late
amendments, agreement in principle was reached at the December
Council, subject to further consideration of the text. The final
text put before the 20-21 January Agriculture Council was considered
unsatisfactory by Member States, and further work has been done
on it in preparation for the Agriculture Council on 17-18 February.
The Parliamentary Secretary has now written to us to set out
the present position and reply to the points raised in our previous
Report.
The Parliamentary Secretary's
letter
3.4 The Parliamentary
Secretary (Commons) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food (Mrs Browning) says in her letter of 10 February that
she shares our concern about the way the proposal has been handled
by the Commission and Council Secretariat, and has written to
the Presidency expressing these reservations, particularly about
the lack of opportunity for consideration by National Parliaments.
She tells us that the documents for the February Council will
be based on two Council Secretariat documents, which will make
clear exactly what amendments are being put forward for decision.
She points out that the requirement for Member States to have
pig and cattle databases in place by 31 December 1999 has been
maintained, and she has taken up with the Commission the likely
cost to the Community of setting up a pig database compared to
the benefits. Consultation with the pig industry has only just
concluded and is being analysed.
3.5 On the derogation
for trade in slaughter cattle from herds in Spain, the Parliamentary
Secretary indicates that the UK will not import Spanish cattle
under the derogation, which is primarily to maintain a current
trade in slaughter cattle from Spain to France.
Conclusion
3.6 We are grateful
for the Government taking up with the Presidency our concerns
about the handling of this issue. We have seen the Council Secretariat
document which will be the basis for decision and note that the
points for decision are now clear to the UK Government. We also
note that the Council Secretariat text is to go to the Agriculture
Council, even though the cost/benefit of the pig database proposal
has not been fully considered by the Commission, nor has there
yet been time to assess fully the reaction of the pig industry.
We therefore support the Government's view that adoption should
not take place until these matters are resolved, and record its
concern that the Presidency may press for early adoption if there
is a qualified majority at the February Council.
3.7 We would like
to see the outcome of the consultation with the pig industry and,
if available, the Commission's response on the question of cost/
benefit before making a recommendation to the House. We are therefore
not clearing the proposal.
7 (15128) 4168/94; See HC 48-x (1993-94), paragraph 1 (2 March 1994); HC 48-xviii (1993-94), paragraph 1 (1 May 1994); HC 70-xix (1994-95), paragraph 11 (21 June 1995); HC 36-vii (1996-97), paragraph 7 (11 December 1996); HC 36-xi (1996-97), paragraph 7 (29 January 1997). Back
8 (17535) 10495/96; see HC 36-iii (1996-97), paragraph 5 (30 October 1996) and HC 36-iii (1996-97), paragraph 8 (13 November 1996). Back
9 See HC 36-xi (1996-97), paragraph 7 (29 January 1997). Back
|
