IDENTIFICATION OF CATTLE AND LABELLING
OF BEEF PRODUCTS
(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.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 152 EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| Department:
| Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Second SEM of 17 April 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-ii (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (1 December 1999), and HC 23-viii (1999-2000), paragraph 1 (9 February 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| 31 August 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared; but further information requested
|
Background
6.1 Council Directive 64/432/EEC as amended
includes various measures to identify and register animals, which
were introduced as part of the preparation for the Single Market,
and in connection with the direct livestock subsidy payments made
available under the 1992 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP). However, following the BSE crisis, the Council agreed Regulation
(EC) No. 820/97[22],
which introduces more stringent labelling of beef and beef products;
provides for a central database; requires stricter tagging provisions;
and ensures that the documents accompanying cattle movements are
adequate.
6.2 Towards the end of last year, the Commission
put forward two new documents. The first comprised a report on
the implementation by the different Member States of Regulation
No. 820/97. The second proposed two further 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:
(1) 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;
(2) the second stage, to take effect from 1 January
2003, would introduce compulsory origin marking for birth, fattening,
slaughter and de-boning;
(3) other indications on characteristics or production
conditions would remain subject to a voluntary scheme, including
third party verification.
The proposal also appeared to exclude any origin
labelling under the voluntary scheme; to omit a current provision
allowing a Member State to opt out of the compulsory scheme for
purely domestic trade; and to remove exemptions for protected
geographical indications and protected geographical designations
of origin.
6.3 In our Report of 1 December 1999, we
noted 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.
6.4 We were subsequently informed by 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 1999 to agree on the Commission's detailed
proposal, and that, in order to avoid a legal vacuum, it had therefore
decided 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.
6.5 As we noted in our Report of 9 February
2000, the Minister also provided in her Supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 31 January the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment
showing that, for the industry as a whole, the proposal would
give rise to total non-recurring costs of around £15.5 million,
and recurring costs of about £20.2 million. It also suggested
that compliance costs were unlikely to be significant, except
to small butchers, who would not be able to exploit economies
of scale. It went on to suggest that since consumers tend to prefer
their own country's product, this measure could lead to a re-nationalisation
of the Community beef market, but that it would provide them with
more and accurate information about the beef they buy, as well
as establishing traceability in the event of a public health scare.
Despite this, the Assessment said that consumer organisations
did not think the proposed indications would be useful and did
not want them on the label. Those representing the industry were
also said to be largely against the proposal on grounds of cost,
and that, although traceability systems were supported, most preferred
labelling to be voluntary.
Second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of
17 April 2000
6.6 In her second Supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 17 April 2000, the Minister says that, following
negotiations in Brussels, the Portuguese Presidency will present
a compromise proposal to the Agriculture Council on 17-18 April.
She adds that this is likely to provide for the first stage of
the compulsory system to come into effect from 1 September 2000,
requiring labelling with individual traceability codes, and the
Member State or Third Country, and approval number, of the slaughterhouse
and cutting plant; information on the date of slaughter and ideal
maturation period would, however, no longer be required. She says
that the second stage of the compulsory system is likely to come
into effect from 1 January 2003 (or earlier, if amendments proposed
by the European Parliament are eventually accepted), and would
require additional labelling with Member State or Third Country
of birth and fattening. The Presidency has proposed that there
should be a derogation in respect of minced beef (and, where necessary,
for beef trimmings and diced beef), which would provide only for
labels to contain a traceability code, and an indication of the
Member State where the beef was minced. Finally, the Minister
suggests that the voluntary labelling system is likely to include
regional indications of origin.
6.7 Our Report of 1 December 1999 also drew
attention to the difference which had arisen between the Council
and the Commission over the correct legal base for the proposal.
In particular, the Commission had taken the Council to the European
Court of Justice over the decision to base Regulation 820/97 on
Article 43 (now Article 37), whereas the Commission considered
that, because the measure was principally concerned with public
health, Article 100a should have been used, and that Article 152
would thus be the appropriate base once the Treaty of Amsterdam
had come into force. According to the Minister, the Court has
now ruled that Article 37 was a suitable legal base for Regulation
820/97, but also observed that this ruling does not create a precedent,
particularly in view of the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
She says that the Commission and the Council Legal Service remain
convinced that Article 152 is the appropriate legal base for the
current proposal, but that most Member States, including the UK,
favour a dual base of Articles 37 and 152. She comments that this
issue will have to be resolved before a Common Position is agreed.
The Government's view
6.8 As regards the policy implications of
the proposal, the Minister says that two Member States are keen
to bring forward the second stage of the compulsory system, but
that this will pose problems for those which will not have fully
operational databases by then. However, she believes that, because
the age of supplies entering the food chain is controlled by the
Over Thirty Months Scheme for cattle, the UK could live with a
date of 1 April 2001 for the introduction of the second stage.
She goes on to say that a few Member States are keen to retain
power to require additional labelling details on their own beef
for sale in their territories, whilst a small number also favour
retention of "EU origin" as an optional description,
instead of the name of the Member State. She says that the UK
prefers uniformity of rules, and is thus not in favour of the
first of these requirements, and that, since it recognises that
origin labelling is necessary in order to export, it has not pressed
for the retention of the "EU origin" option (which is
strongly opposed by those who want the Member State of origin
to be specified). She also comments that neither the Member States
nor the European Parliament share the Commission's enthusiasm
for a logo for beef which is traceable back to individual animals
(as opposed to batches), and that there has been no support for
the UK's wish to see a derogation, from at least the second stage
of the compulsory system, for beef labelled with Protected Geographical
Indications/Protected Designations of Origins, such as "Scotch
Beef".
6.9 Finally, in a covering letter to her
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister says that,
in the light of the Presidency text, the Agriculture Council on
17-18 April is likely to agree in principle to a Common Position
for negotiation with the Commission and the European Parliament.
She adds that, although she realises that by then we will not
have considered this document, she expects that the UK will, if
necessary, signify its agreement to a proposal very much along
the lines of the text explained in her Memorandum. She notes that
the compulsory labelling system is due to come into effect on
1 September this year, and she believes that failure to reach
agreement on the Common Position at the forthcoming Council would
be detrimental to UK interests.
Conclusion
6.10 We understand that a Common Position
was in fact agreed at the Council yesterday, and, whilst we recognise
the significance of this measure to the UK industry, it is unfortunate
that agreement should have been reached on a subject of this importance
before we had completed our consideration of it.
6.11 We assume the Minister will at least
let us know whether the text agreed is indeed along the lines
she has indicated. When she does so, we would like her to explain
further two points in her Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum,
where we were unclear as to the implications of what is proposed.
First, the proposal regarding minced beef would appear to require
only the processing plant to be identified, and thus to weaken
the link between the end-product and the animals from which it
comes. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether
this is so, and the significance of the change. Secondly, it is
not clear precisely why a derogation is considered necessary for
Protected Geographical Indications/Protected Designations of Origin,
and the consequences if, as the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
suggests is likely, the UK request on this is not agreed. Again,
we would welcome a fuller explanation of this point. In
the meantime, we clear this document.
22 OJ No. L 117, 7.5.97, p. 1. Back
|
