7. We have given further consideration to the following on the basis of a
second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum. We maintain our opinion[10] 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 7.1 below). |
Background
7.1 We have twice considered these proposals, which the Commission has put forward
to simplify a number of "vertical"[11] food directives
to ensure that they contain only the minimum necessary for intra-Community trade purposes. We have
three major concerns. The first is that the proposals do not simplify but further complicate, in
that they lay down more stringent rules; second, the Commission is seeking an Advisory Committee
procedure (meaning that it would merely have to seek the views of Member States) in 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); and third, the seven proposals have different
legal bases, five of them being put forward under Article 43, which does not require the co-decision
procedure with the European Parliament, with the other two (on cocoa and coffee) put forward under
Article 100a, which does.
Report on progress
7.2 The Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food (Mrs Browning) has now provided a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum (dated 14 March)
on progress on the proposals. Discussion has focused on the appropriate Committee procedure and
consideration of the legal basis of the proposals has not yet reached a conclusion.
7.3 She tells us that the Commission has put forward a justification of its choice
of Advisory Committee procedure, arguing that the proposals do not contain any significant public
health issues. It says that for internal market issues the Commission prefers advisory committee
procedure. The majority of Member States want a regulatory Committee procedure, which would give
Member States more control over any changes to the proposals and preserve the role of the Council
in the amendment of its own legislation. The matter has been remitted to the Committee of Permanent
Representatives (COREPER).
7.4 The Parliamentary Secretary also says that the Council's Legal Service considers
that Article 100a of the Treaty is appropriate for the chocolate and coffee proposals and Article
43 for the remainder. She adds: "Informal soundings suggest that the European Parliament's
Legal Service is also satisfied with the legal basis proposed". No progress has been made on
the possibility of splitting the proposal to accord with the appropriate legal bases of the
underlying Directives.
Conclusion
7.5 We note that little progress has been made on resolving the concerns we
expressed earlier. We maintain our view that the seven proposals should be dealt with in a way
which reflects the legal bases of the Directives to be amended so that each of the products is dealt
with in the forum in which it is normally discussed. We are also concerned about the proposal to
replace the regulatory committee procedure, which has operated satisfactorily, with an advisory
procedure, which would give the Commission total control. The justification put forward by the
Commission, as recorded in the Second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, that the proposals do
not contain any significant public health issues, ignores the fact that changes made to these
Directives have wide-ranging consequences for producers, manufacturers and consumers and that the
issues require proper discussion, with recourse to the Council in the event of disagreement.
7.6 We understand that little progress is likely before June and, as the issues
have not yet been clarified, we are not clearing the document.
10.(17293) 8164/96; see HC 51-xxvi (1995-96), paragraph 5 (17 July 1996), and HC
36-i (1996-97), paragraph 10 (30 October 1996). Back
11.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
|
