EIGHTH REPORT
The European Scrutiny Committee has made further
progress in the matter referred to it and has agreed to the following
Report:—
IDENTIFICATION OF CATTLE
AND LABELLING OF BEEF PRODUCTS
(a)
(20627)
12030/99
COM(99) 487
|
Draft Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97; and
Draft Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products.
|
(b)
(20854)
5118/00
COM(99) 664
|
Draft Council Regulation providing for the general rules for a compulsory beef labelling system.
|
| Legal base: |
(a) Article 152 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
(b) Article 19 EC; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| (b) 17 December 1999 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| (b) 20 December 1999 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| (b) 17 January 2000 |
| Department: |
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| (a) SEM of 31 January 2000
(b) EM of 17 January 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| (a) HC 23-ii (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (1 December 1999)
(b) None
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| (a) In due course
(b) 14-15 December 1999 (adopted on 21 December 1999)
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| (a) Not cleared; awaiting further information
(b) Cleared
|
Background
1.1 The provisions of Council Directive
64/432/EEC[19]
on the health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine
animals and swine include measures to identify and register cattle,
sheep, goats, pigs and farmed deer, introduced as part of the
preparation for the Single Market, and in connection with the
introduction of direct livestock subsidy payments under the 1992
reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
1.2 However, following the fall in consumer
confidence in beef in the wake of the BSE crisis, the Commission
took the view that further labelling measures involving full traceability
in the case of cattle were needed. It therefore put forward in
October 1996 a proposal[20]
to develop the labelling of beef and beef products in order to
reassure consumers about quality; to provide a central data base;
to require stricter tagging provisions; and to ensure that the
documents accompanying cattle movements are adequate. This was
subsequently adopted as Council Regulation (EC) No. 820/97[21],
which also required the Commission subsequently to submit a report
to the Council on its implementation in the different Member States.
1.3 As we noted in our Report of 1 December
1999, the Commission put forward towards the end of last year
two documents. The first of these comprised the report[22]
required of it under Council Regulation 820/97/EC. The second
(document (a)) proposed two Council Regulations, which would have:
- deferred by one year, until 31 December 2000,
the ending of the existing voluntary scheme;
- introduced thereafter a two stage compulsory
labelling system and a parallel voluntary system under which:
— the first stage of the compulsory system
would require, as from 1 January 2001, the labelling of all beef
with traceability codes, showing the link between the meat and
the animal from which it is derived; approval numbers of slaughterhouses
and deboning plants (together with the relevant region or Member
State); date of slaughter; and ideal minimum maturation period
of the beef;
— the second stage, to take effect from
1 January 2003, would introduce compulsory origin marking for
birth, fattening, slaughter and de-boning;
— other indications on characteristics
or production conditions would remain subject to a voluntary scheme,
including third party verification;
- also postponed by one year (until 31 December
2001) the date of the submission to the Council of a report on
electronic identification of cattle.
1.4 In commenting on the proposed new Council
Regulations, we first noted that the Minister of State (Lords)
at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman)
had identified a timing problem arising from a case before the
European Court over differences between the Council and Commission
concerning the correct legal base, and that the Commission's preferred
approach would require co-decision by the European Parliament
and hence slow the decision-making process. We also noted (in
paragraph 1.13 of our Report) that the Government had a number
of detailed points which it wished to pursue, and that, after
it had consulted industry organisations and other interested parties,
it would be letting us have a full Regulatory Impact Assessment.
We therefore said that we would withhold clearance pending receipt
of this further information, but that, if the Council was asked
at its meeting on 14-15 December to agree that the present arrangements
should be extended, and the introduction of a compulsory scheme
deferred, pending further discussion on the content of any such
scheme, we would be prepared for the Government to agree to this,
in order to avoid any legal hiatus.
Minister's letter and Explanatory Memorandum of
17 January 2000
1.5 We were subsequently informed in a letter
and Explanatory Memorandum of 17 January 2000 from the Minister
of State (Commons) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (The Rt. Hon. Joyce Quin) that the Council had been unable
at its meeting in December to agree on the Commission's detailed
proposal for compulsory labelling. In order to avoid a legal vacuum,
it had therefore decided (document (b)) to provide for the continuation
of the existing system for a further eight months until 31 August
2000, in the expectation that it would in the meantime be able
to agree specific compulsory rules to come into force on or before
1 September 2000.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 31 January
2000
1.6 In her Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 31 January 2000, the Minister has provided the promised Regulatory
Impact Assessment on the proposal which remains on the table (document
(a)). This suggests that, on the basis that beef and veal sold
in the Community would have to be labelled with eight indications
from 1 January 2001, and a further two from 1 January 2003, the
overall costs for a typical business in the various stages of
the supply chain would be as follows:
| |
Non-recurring
| Recurring
|
| Slaughterhouses | £400
| £275
|
| Cutting plants | £360
| £265
|
| Supermarket chains |
£612,850
| £885,800
|
| Independent retail butchers
| £585
| £600
|
1.7 For the industry as a whole, these figures
would give rise to total non-recurring costs of around £15.5
million, and recurring costs of about £20.2 million, and
the Assessment points out that this could in turn lead to increases
in the price of beef. It also suggests that, insofar as consumer
preferences for the domestic product exist within Member States,
labelling by country of origin may have the effect of renationalising
the Community beef market (and make British beef harder to export).
On the other hand, it says that the measure would provide consumers
with more and accurate information about the beef they buy, as
well as establishing traceability in the event of a public health
scare. It also suggests that compliance costs are unlikely to
be significant, except to small butchers, who do not market pre-packed
beef, and who are not, unlike their larger competitors, able to
exploit economies of scale.
1.8 The Regulatory Impact Assessment also
summarises the views of the 17 out of the 115 organisations consulted
which responded by the 6 December 1999 deadline. Those representing
the industry were said to be largely against the proposal on grounds
of cost, and because origin marking is seen as encouraging the
re-nationalisation of the market. Also, although traceability
systems were supported, most preferred labelling to be voluntary.
Likewise, consumer organisations did not think the proposed detailed
indications would be useful, and did not want them present on
the label as they would cause confusion.
Conclusion
1.9 We are grateful to the Minister for
the Regulatory Impact Assessment on the first of the two documents
covered by this Report, from which we note that those industry
organisations which responded to the consultation exercise appeared
to be largely against the proposal, and that — surprisingly
perhaps — consumer organisations had also expressed doubts
as to the usefulness of the proposed indications, and did not
want them on the label. Given these responses, and given also
the points in the proposal on which the Government itself has
expressed reservations, we would be glad if the Minister would
continue to keep us informed of the progress of discussions in
Brussels. In the meantime, we are not clearing this document.
On the other hand, we are clearing the second document, extending
the status quo until 31 August 2000, on the basis that this represents
a sensible step, which the Council has already adopted.
19 OJ No. 121, 29.7.64, p. 1977. Back
20 (17535)
10495/96; see HC 36-i (1996-97), paragraph 5 (30 October 1996);
HC 36-iii (1996-97), paragraph 8 (13 November 1996); HC 36-xii
(1996-97), paragraph 7 (5 February 1997); and HC 36-xvii (1996-97),
paragraph 3 (12 March 1997). Back
21 OJ
No. L 117, 7.5.97, p.1. Back
22 (20604)
12301/99; see HC 23-ii (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (1 December 1999). Back
|
