Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-Sixth Report


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
Department: Health, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Basis of consideration: Minister's letter of 21 July 2000
Previous Committee Report: HC 23-xxiv (1999-2000), paragraph 10 (12 July 2000)
To be discussed in Council: No date set
Committee's assessment: Politically important
Committee's decision: Cleared (decision reported on 12 July 2000)

Background

  15.1  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[33], 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 Decision could come into effect, a number of potential problems became apparent. The Standing Veterinary Committee (SVC) therefore agreed a deferment until 1 April 1998, the hope being that a suitable amendment could be agreed by that date.

  15.2  Since then, the Commission has on two occasions — in March and November 1998[34] — 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[35], 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.

  15.3  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. It was therefore necessary to refer the matter to the Agriculture Council on 19 June, at which the proposal received neither a qualified majority in favour nor a simple majority against. As a result, the Commission has now adopted the measure under its own powers, and, according to information provided by the Government in an Explanatory Memorandum dated 4 July 2000, the rules now in force 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 excluding uses such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals;

  • a longer list of tissues from bovine animals 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 the other Member States;

  • the use of ruminant head bones as well as vertebral column in the production of mechanically recovered meat would be prohibited;

  • although the proposal would (like Decision 97/534/EC) apply to imports from Third Countries, provision would be made for exemptions;

  • future amendments would be able to take account of the ruminant feed ban by allowing the controls to be limited only to animals born before the date of the ban;

  • 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.

  15.4  We were also told that the Government considered that the proposal was "on balance" acceptable, and represented a major improvement on previous proposals, under which the SRM controls in a Member State would have depended on its "BSE risk status", thus resulting in different SRM controls in different Member States. The Government also considered the proposal was 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.

  15.5  At the same time, however, the Government also made it clear that the proposal raised a number of problems. 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. This step had, however, been welcomed by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), which 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.

  15.6  In the conclusions to our Report of 12 July 2000, we said that, whilst we had noted the Government's comments, there were a number of aspects of the measure which concerned us.

  15.7  First, although the Government had expressed regret that events had moved too quickly to enable us to complete our consideration of this proposal, the first formal indication we received of the proposal was an Explanatory Memorandum dated 4 July — some two weeks after the discussion in the Council. Since it had been known early in June that a proposal would need to go to the Council within 15 days, we saw 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 meeting on 19 June. We therefore asked for an explanation for this unconscionable delay.

  15.8  Secondly, we found it odd that a proposal of this kind dealing with an important subject (and which had given rise to repeated difficulties) should have been the subject of Commission legislation, whereas another current proposal on the control of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies[36] would involve a Council Regulation. Given also that under the rules of procedure applicable to the SVC, the Council is required to take a view within fifteen days once the proposal had failed to secure the necessary majority in the SVC, we suggested that it was inappropriate for the Council to be asked to consider at such short notice major policy amendments of the kind contained in the current document.

  15.9  We also had two points on the substance of the proposal. First, although the Explanatory Memorandum had said that it would introduce Community-wide SRM controls and would not be dependent on a Member State's BSE status, it was nevertheless clear that those controls would be somewhat more extensive in Portugal and the UK than in the other Member States, apparently because of the alleged BSE risk.

  15.10  We also noted that the new Decision would remove some of the controls currently in force in the UK. Since SEAC had indicated that this would lead to some slight increase in risk, we said we were not clear why this should be regarded as welcome, nor on the extent to which the position could still be safeguarded in this country by the continuing limits on the use of mammalian tissue in farmed livestock feed contained in the BSE (No. 2) Order 1996. We therefore asked the Government to comment further on both these points.

Minister's letter of 21 July 2000

  15.11  In her letter of 21 July 2000, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health (Ms Gisela Stuart) sought to address these concerns.

  15.12  First, she says that she regrets the delay in achieving a decision on the Explanatory Memorandum for this proposal, but points out that this was a complex and difficult subject with many factors which needed careful thought.

  15.13  Secondly, as regards the use of Commission rather than Council legislation, she says that several Member States (including the UK) had introduced unilateral interim protective measures against imports of SRM, which obliged the Commission under the Veterinary Products Directive (89/662/EEC) to review the situation in the SVC as soon as possible, and to adopt any measures necessary. She adds that, in this case, the Commission's original Decision (97/534/EC) was defective, and could not be allowed to come into force. However, she says that the Commission did not consider its obligation to act was met by the introduction of this legislation, and felt bound by the Veterinary Products Directive to continue to seek agreement to harmonised measures. She also makes the point that, in the absence of early progress on the proposed Council Regulation on TSEs, leaving national measures in force would have distorted trade between Member States, and that the Commission's measure has a beneficial effect on consumer protection in the UK, as a Community requirement to remove SRM at source in slaughterhouses is a much more effective means of enforcing the prohibition on imported risk material than a national requirement for certification that products do not contain such material when SRM is allowed in free circulation.

  15.14  Thirdly, as regards our question over the distinction apparently drawn between the UK and Portugal and other Member States, the Minister says that it is a matter of record that the scale of the epidemic in the UK is "substantially greater" than in other Member States, with 2,274 of the 2,648 reported cases of BSE world-wide in 1999 being in Great Britain, and 168 in Portugal, and no other Member State recording 100 cases or exceeding 100 cases per million head of adult cattle. She adds that there is a dividing line between high and low risk countries under the code of the Organisation International d'Epizooties (OIE).

  15.15  Fourthly, as regards our observation that the Decision will remove some of the controls currently in force in the UK, she reiterates the SEAC view that the benefits of introducing SRM controls across the Community outweighed the slight increase in risk that may arise from the consequential change to the UK's existing controls.

  15.16  She adds that no increase in risk could in itself be considered welcome, and that the Government would have preferred to retain the option of maintaining the current UK controls. It had accordingly pressed in the negotiations for a provision in the Directive which would allow a Member State to take additional national measures in relation to animals slaughtered in its own territory. However, the Minister points out that the Commission proposal — which she says was based on advice from the Community's Scientific Steering Committee — met a long-standing UK objective of a harmonised system of SRM control throughout the Community, and that the Government considered, in the light of SEAC's advice, that the benefits of that would outweigh the small increase in risk from the consequent "limited" reduction in our current national controls. She also makes the point that no other Member State supported the UK position on national measures, and that it was clear that the Commission was seeking a harmonised system. Consequently, it too was strongly opposed to the superimposition of national measures which might set up barriers to trade or encourage those seeking to avoid the measures altogether. As a result, it was not possible to obtain any change on this point.

  15.17  Finally, on our query about the BSE (No. 2) Order 1996, the Minister says that this reference was intended simply to indicate that the removal of some SRM controls would have no effect on animal health, as the main safeguard in that area is provided by the wider controls on the use of mammalian meat and bone-meal in livestock feed.

Conclusion

  15.18  We are grateful to the Minister for this further information, which we have noted, and on which we have two comments.

  15.19  First, given the relative incidence of BSE in the UK (referred to in paragraph 15.14 above) and the proportion of meat consumption in this country met by home produced supplies, we still find it somewhat surprising that the benefits of greater controls over SRM in other Member States outweigh the risks arising from a reduction in the previous UK controls. However, we accept that this has been considered by SEAC, which is content with the overall balance of risk.

  15.20  Secondly, we do not a regard as acceptable the Minister's comment that the delay in providing an Explanatory Memorandum on this proposal was due to the complex and difficult nature of the subject. Quite apart from the fact that the subject has in one way or another been under discussion for nearly two years, the Government must have had a good idea of its position in relation both to the SVC meeting on 7 June and the Council meeting on 19 June. We see no good reason, therefore, why a Memorandum could not have been provided in time for us to have discharged our scrutiny responsibilities properly, and we would remind the Minister of her obligations to the House in this respect, whatever the alleged complexities of the subject under discussion.


33  OJ No. L 21, 8.8.97, p. 95. Back

34  See (18983) 6755/98 and (18984) 7265/98: HC 155-xxv (1997-98), paragraph 16 (22 April 1998); and (19701) 13685/98: HC 34-vi (1998-99), paragraph 15 (20 January 1999). Back

35   See (20833) 13981/99: HC 23-v (1999-2000), paragraph 11 (19 January 2000). Back

36  (19751) 5196/99; see HC 34-xiii (1998-99), paragraph 2 (17 March 1999). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 2 August 2000