5. We have given further
consideration to the following on the basis of further information
from the Government. We maintain our opinion[17]
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
5.1 Proposals on health
problems affecting intra-Community trade in cattle and pigs have
been under discussion for more than two years. A late change
in this proposal required obligatory central databases
for cattle and pigs to be in operation by 31 December 1999. Discussion
had previously been on the basis of optional databases. The proposed
compulsory 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 Government estimated the cost of setting up
such a mandatory system at £3 million to £5 million
in Great Britain, with annual running costs of around £2
million. No cost/benefit assessment had been provided by the
Commission (who had accepted the last minute amendment put forward
by the Council Secretariat).
5.2 Some other changes
were made in the proposal, in particular a derogation for the
export of animals from Spain, on which we sought further information,
and which was supplied to us for our sitting on 12 February 1997.
On the basis of the further information we noted that the cost/benefit
of the pig database proposal had not been fully considered by
the Commission, nor had there been time to assess the reactions
of the pig industry. We therefore urged the Government not to
agree to the proposal until these two matters were resolved.
We now understand that the proposal may be put before the 17-19
March Agriculture Council.
The Parliamentary Secretary's
letter of 25 February
5.3 This letter deals
with the two outstanding points. We are grateful that the Government
has taken up the question of likely costs with the Commission
and has sent us a copy of the Commission's justification. This
states:
"I can confirm
that the proposed pig database introduced during the discussions
in the Council was endorsed by the Commission. This endorsement
took into account that the availability of a database is a very
valuable tool for the control and prevention of serious pig diseases.
In this context, I wish to recall the start of modern epidemiology
in 1855 when Dr John Snow, Queen Victoria's anaesthesiologist,
used simple maps of the distribution of human cholera mortality
in London to help establish that the disease was waterborne.
This research was a cornerstone of medical geography and assisted
greatly in the development of the discipline of epidemiology.
"Today, with
the advent of computer-based electronic data processing, it has
become possible to process information on many aspects associated
with animal populations, disease surveillance, disease control
and in-depth epidemiological studies. Readily available information
on size, type and location of pig herds will be extremely useful
in disaster planning, disease control management and tracing of
spread of disease.
"In recent years
it has been noted that in areas where a pig database has been
in place during a Classical Swine Fever epidemic, the time and
manpower required to complete epidemiological investigations were
reduced considerably. The economic benefits obtained from curtailing
an epidemic by using a pig database is difficult to estimate but
a reduction in the number of outbreaks of a serious infectious
disease like Classical Swine Fever may easily outweigh the costs
of a database."
5.4 We note from the
Parliamentary Secretary's letter:
"The overwhelming
view of the pig producers is that there is no need for a database
for pigs. They point to the current high health status of the
national herd. They note that most pigs do not move from their
natal holdings until they go for slaughter, and that there is
no benefit in recording these moves onto a database. They are
particularly opposed to paying for a database, especially as they
perceive no benefit from one."
The Parliamentary
Secretary adds:
"However, trade
associations for the abattoirs and meat manufactures are, in principle,
in favour of a database".
Conclusions
5.5 The letter from
the Commission is in no sense a cost/benefit justification for
a compulsory measure. There are many other ways in which information
on disease control can be obtained, as is clearly demonstrated
by United Kingdom experience. The Commission letter does not
take into account the degree of availability of "computer-based
electronic data processing" throughout the Community . It
may be available for large-scale pig breeders; it is highly unlikely
that it would be available for small individual pig keepers, particularly
in the more remote areas of the Community. The imposition of
a compulsory system without consultation with those likely to
be affected may well result in a régime which cannot be
properly enforced.
5.6 We note that the
trade associations for abattoirs and meat manufacturers are in
favour of a database, but the proposals are likely to have little
or no cost or other implications for them.
5.7 We have considered
whether a debate would now be appropriate on this proposal. We
believe that the Government agrees with our view that the late
change, without proper consideration, is unacceptable. Proposals
put for decision which are not available for scrutiny, and which
are presented on ill-prepared documentation not available in all
languages, can only discredit the process of Community legislation.
This sequence of events eloquently supports our case for an effective
four-week period of notice for all legislative and pre-legislative
documents. While a debate could emphasise these concerns, it
is unlikely to lead to any more productive outcome.
5.8 However, we consider
the matter should not be lightly dismissed. We note the remarks
of the Director General of DG VI[18]
reported in Agra Europe that CAP reform "must
involve a high measure of simplification and deregulation with
important parts of the responsibility of the management of agriculture
policy being returned to the Member State Governments".
This proposal, in so far as it relates to the pig database, exemplifies
much of what is wrong with the way in which Community legislation
is decided. In particular:
(1) this
is a further amendment to the Directive 64/432/EEC, which has
been amended no fewer than 40 times and which has long
been in need of consolidation. A full consolidation has not yet
taken place despite the Commission's stated policy that all legislative
measures should be consolidated after no more than ten amendments
[19];
(2) the
introduction of a compulsory requirement at the last moment prevented
proper discussion and scrutiny;
(3) the
proposal put to the Council in December for decision was not available
in all the official languages;
(4) the
Commission has not carried out a proper cost benefit analysis,
despite agreeing to make the database compulsory;
(5) the
means of implementing the compulsory requirement have not been
discussed with those most directly affected, either by the Commission
or by the Member States;
(6) the
Commission did not carry out any real assessment as to the practicability
of a requirement for which, presumably, there will be penalties
for non-compliance;
(7) it
is unclear whether this compulsory database requirement will duplicate
already well tried and established systems operating in Member
States.
5.9 The Commission
has supported making the database compulsory when previous discussions
had indicated that many Member States preferred an optional arrangement,
but it has not shown that this action is necessary.[20]
5.10 We are therefore
writing to the Secretary-General of the Commission to raise our
concerns. In our view, better legislation requires adequate Scrutiny
by Member States, prior consultation with those likely to be affected,
a proper cost/benefit assessment and the avoidance of legislation
that cannot be properly implemented throughout the Community.
We would like to know in what ways the Commission considers that
this proposal meets these conditions. Meanwhile, we are not clearing
the document.
17 (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); HC 36-xiv (1996-97), paragraph 3 (1 February 1997). Back
18 The Directorate General responsible for agriculture. Back
19 The Commission most recently quoted this standing instruction in document 12469/96, which we quoted in our Report on this proposal on 29 January 1997, paragraph 7. See also our Report on The Role of National Parliaments, HC 51-xxviii (1995-96), paragraphs 111-112. Back
20 See Article 3b of the Treaty, third paragraph. Back
|
