TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES:
SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS FROM CATTLE, SHEEP AND PIGS
(21315)
9440/00
COM(00) 378
|
Draft Council Decision amending Commission Decision 97/534/EC
regulating the use of material presenting risks as regards transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) and amending Decision
94/474/EC.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 9(4) of Council Directive 89/662/EC, Article 10(4)
of Council Directive 90/425/EC and Article 19 of Council
Directive 90/675/EC
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 16 June 2000 |
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 21 June 2000 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 29 June 2000 |
| Department: |
Health, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
|
| Basis of consideration:
| EM of 4 July 2000, and undated Minister's letter
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see paragraph 10.2 below
|
| Discussed in Council:
| 19 June 2000 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared, but further information requested
|
Background
10.1 As part of the measures to counter
the transmission of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), the
Commission adopted on 30 July 1997 Decision 97/534/EC[29],
which would have introduced, with effect from 1 January 1998,
Community-wide controls on certain "specified risk materials"
(SRM) from cattle, sheep and goats. However, before the Directive
could come into effect, a number of potential problems became
apparent, the main concern being that it would have disrupted
the supply of essential medicines derived from SRM, as well as
"technical uses" unconnected with food and feed. The
Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC) therefore agreed a deferment
until 1 April 1998, the hope being that a suitable amendment to
that Decision could be agreed by this later date.
10.2 Since then, the Commission has on two
occasions — in March and November 1998[30]
— sought unsuccessfully to persuade first the SVC, and then
the Council, either to adopt amendments to Decision 97/534/EC,
or to repeal that measure. Most recently, as we recorded in our
Report of 19 January 2000[31],
the Council decided last December, in the continuing absence of
agreement on the substantive amendments needed, that the entry
into force of Decision 97/534/EC should be deferred for a further
six months, to 30 June 2000.
The present proposal
10.3 Given this last deadline, the Commission
put to the SVC on 7 June 2000 a further proposal to replace Decision
97/534/EC with an amended set of rules on the use of SRM, but
this too failed to secure the necessary qualified majority. As
a result, it was necessary to refer the matter to the Agriculture
Council on 19 June.
10.4 According to the Explanatory Memorandum
dated 4 July 2000 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Department of Health (Ms Gisela Stuart) and the Minister
of State (Lords) at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food (Baroness Hayman), the rules now proposed would differ from
those in Decision 97/534/EC in the following essential respects:
- the scope would be limited to the use of SRM
for human food, animal feed or fertilisers, thus avoiding problems
in relation to uses such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals (where
we understand that public health protection in relation to the
use of SRM is provided for in other Community legislation);
- a longer list of tissues from bovine animals
(including vertebral column and dorsal root ganglia of animals
aged over 30 months) would be designated as SRM in the case of
the UK and Portugal, as the Member States considered to have the
highest BSE risk;
- ileum of bovine animals aged over 12 months would
be added to the list of SRM in countries other than the UK and
Portugal (where the whole of the intestine, including ileum, would
have to be removed);
- the use of ruminant head bones as well as vertebral
column in the production of mechanically recovered meat would
be prohibited, as would the practice of pithing of ruminant animals
intended for human or animal consumption;
- although the proposal would (like Decision 97/534/EC)
apply to imports from Third Countries, provision would be made
for it to be amended to exempt specific countries, after consideration
of a request for this from the countries concerned;
- provision would also be made for future amendments
to take account of the effective enforcement of the ruminant feed
ban by allowing the controls to be limited only to animals born
before the effective date of such a ban, and to allow the use
of bovine vertebral column from the UK and Portugal to be extended;
- the requirements for the disposal of SRM would
be tightened; and
- Member States would not be allowed to take further
action in relation to animals slaughtered on their own territory.
10.5 Member States would be required to
implement the controls with effect from 1 October 2000, except
that the ban on pithing and the controls on imports from Third
Countries would be effective from 1 January 2001 and 1 April 2001
respectively.
10.6 The Explanatory Memorandum goes on
to say that, when the proposal was considered and voted on at
the Council on 19 June, ten Member States (including the UK) voted
in favour, four against, and one abstained. As a consequence,
the proposal received neither a qualified majority in favour nor
a simple majority against, and the Commission confirmed that it
would therefore adopt the proposal under its own powers. We have
now been informed in an undated letter from Ms Stuart, which we
received only yesterday, that the Commission subsequently said
that it would do so by 30 June, when the existing Decision 97/534/EC
would otherwise have come into force. The Minister also
says that she regrets that "events moved too quickly"
to enable us to complete our consideration of this dossier before
the Council.
The Government's view
10.7 According to the joint Explanatory
Memorandum, the Government considers that the proposal is "on
balance" acceptable, and represents a major improvement on
previous proposals, under which the SRM controls in a Member State
would have depended on its "BSE risk status". In particular,
the Ministers point out that the latter approach would have resulted
in different SRM controls in different Member States, notwithstanding
the fact that Single Market controls on trade in live animals
and many of the animal products which might contain SRM make it
very difficult to verify their origin. The Government also considers
that this proposal is an improvement because it would introduce
Community-wide SRM controls, based on advice from the EU Scientific
Standing Committee, even in Member States which do not consider
that they have BSE. In addition, it says that an earlier proposal
would have classified vertebral column of cattle aged over six
months as SRM in the UK, thereby reintroducing a ban on beef on
the bone.
10.8 The Explanatory Memorandum then goes
on discuss some of the problems raised by the proposal. It considers
the most difficult of these would be the removal of the controls
in respect of certain tissues which are currently classed as SRM
in UK legislation. As a result, those tissues would be able legally
to be used in food for humans or animals, though the Ministers
add that separate UK controls limiting the use of mammalian tissue
in feed for farmed livestock are still contained within BSE (No.
2) Order 1996. They also say that the proposal has been considered
by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), which
welcomed it, and took the view that, although the reduction in
UK controls to the level set out in the proposal would involve
some slight increase in risk, Community-wide SRM controls would
overall represent a significant step forward.
10.9 The Ministers go on to point out that
the proposal would require SRM to be processed to a higher standard
than is currently required under UK legislation before disposal
by burial at a licensed landfill site. Because this would require
the installation of new equipment, the UK would be unable to comply
with the proposed processing standard within the timescale laid
down. The Government therefore considers that it would be preferable
to move to new SRM processing standards if and when a proposed
new Directive on animal waste disposal, on which a Commission
proposal is expected shortly, is agreed. The Government says it
will be pursuing this issue with the Commission in order to try
to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
10.10 The Explanatory Memorandum also says
that, although a Regulatory Impact Assessment cannot be provided
within the deadline, the proposal would have an impact on businesses
in the UK. On the positive side, the withdrawal of SRM controls
on certain tissues, particularly the heads of sheep aged under
12 months, could reduce the costs to the slaughtering industry
of disposing of this material. On the other hand, pithing is widely
used in the UK on cattle, as it aids both worker safety and animal
welfare by preventing a stunned animal regaining consciousness.
Its prohibition would therefore be likely to increase costs, as
a number of abattoirs would have to adapt buildings or equipment.
Moreover, the relatively short time before the proposed ban would
come into effect could cause problems for plants where major modifications
to the slaughter line would be required. Finally, the Government
points out that the installation of new equipment to comply with
the proposed processing standards would involve significant capital
costs to the rendering industry.
Conclusion
10.11 Whilst we have noted the
Ministers' comments, there are a number of aspects of this proposal
which concern us.
10.12 First,
although the Government says it regrets that events moved too
quickly to enable us to complete our consideration of this proposal,
the fact is that the first formal indication we received was an
Explanatory Memorandum dated 4 July — some two weeks after
the discussion in the Council. Since it was known as long ago
as the SVC meeting on 7 June that a proposal would need to go
to the Council on 19 June, we can see no reason why the Government
could not have provided an Explanatory Memorandum in time for
us at least to have looked at the proposal before the Council
meeting. We would therefore like an explanation for this unconscionable
delay.
10.13 Secondly, and arising directly
out of this, we accept that the formulation of proposals is a
matter for the Commission, but we find it odd that a proposal
of this kind, which deals with an important subject (and which
moreover has clearly given rise to repeated difficulties), should
be the subject of Commission legislation, as opposed (for example)
to another current proposal on the control of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies[32],
where a Council Regulation is envisaged. We are reinforced in
that view by the need, under the Community's rules of procedure,
for the Council to take a view within fifteen days on a proposal
for Commission legislation which has failed to secure the necessary
majority in the SVC. Whilst the need for such speed is understandable
where the Commission needs to take urgent action to combat a particular
disease control situation, it seems inappropriate where the Council
is being asked to consider major policy amendments of the kind
contained in the current document.
10.14 We also have two points on the
substance of the proposal which has now been adopted by the Commission.
First, although the Explanatory Memorandum says that this proposal
would introduce Community-wide SRM controls and not be dependent
on a Member State's BSE status, it is nevertheless clear that
those controls will be somewhat more extensive in Portugal and
the UK than in the other Member States, apparently because of
the alleged BSE risk. In other words, there will presumably still
be some differentiation between Member States on that count.
10.15 On a slightly different tack, we
note that one effect of the new Decision will be to remove some
of the controls currently in force in the UK, which, according
to SEAC, will lead to some slight increase in risk. We are not
clear why this should be regarded as welcome, nor on the extent
to which the position may still be safeguarded in this country
by the continuing limits on the use of mammalian tissue in farmed
livestock feed. We would therefore like the Government to comment
further on both these points.
29 OJ No. L 216, 8.8.97, p.95. Back
30 See
(18983) 6755/98 and (18984) 7265/98: HC 155-xxv (1997-98), paragraph
16 (22 April 1998), and (19701) 13685/98: HC 34-iv (1998-99),
paragraph 15 (20 January 1999). Back
31 See
(20833) 13981/99: HC 23-v (1999-2000), paragraph 11 (19 January
2000). Back
32 (19751)
5196/99; see HC 34-xiii (1998-99), paragraph 2 (17 March 1999). Back
|
