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
|
