1 Control of foot and
mouth disease
| (24143)
15831/02
COM(02) 736
| Draft Council Directive on Community measures for the control of foot and mouth disease and amending Directive 92/46/EC.
|
| Legal base | Article 37 EC; consultation; qualified majority voting
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Second SEM of 6 May 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-x (2002-03), paragraph 1 (29 January 2003) and HC 63-xv (2002-03), paragraph 1 (19 March 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | June 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A (decision reported on 29 January 2003)
|
Background
1.1 Following a review of the Communitys measures for controlling
foot and mouth disease in the light of the experience gained in
eradicating the disease (including the outbreak in the UK in 2001),
the Commission put forward in December 2002 proposals to update
and replace those currently in force.
1.2 The contents of this proposal were set out at
some length in our Report of 29 January 2003, the main change
being that, whilst a ban on prophylactic vaccination would be
retained so as to allow the Community to maintain its internationally
recognised status of free from foot and mouth disease without
vaccination, emergency vaccination would be moved to the forefront
of control strategies, but with a distinction being drawn between
suppressive and protective vaccination.
1.3 We also commented that, to the extent that the
proposal would enact at Council level measures previously dealt
with in both Council and Commission legislation, it perhaps represented
a less significant step in practice than might have been assumed.
Nevertheless, since it introduced some important changes, not
least as regards the use of emergency vaccination and the relative
roles in this respect of the Commission and the Member State directly
affected, in an area of considerable public interest, we recommended
it for debate in European Standing Committee A.
1.4 As we noted in our subsequent Report of 19 March,
the authorisation of emergency vaccination was addressed further
in a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum from the Minister for
Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection at the Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley), together with concerns
over the potential impact, particularly on the sheep sector, of
the new requirements proposed for the treatment of meat from vaccinated
animals before it is placed on the market. That supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum was accompanied by a partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment, which pointed out that the importance of foot
and mouth disease lies principally in its major economic impact,
not just on farming, but on other sectors, notably tourism, and
in its consequential impacts in such areas as countryside access
and environmental costs. The Assessment identified the main costs
of the proposal as arising from the adoption of an emergency vaccination
strategy, and from the treatment required for animal products,
which it described as significant (but as yet unquantified, pending
the outcome of the consultation exercise being undertaken).
Second supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of
6 May 2003
1.5 In his second supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 6 May, the Minister identifies a number of areas where changes
have been made to the proposal, including the measures applying
to rare breeds, the processing of milk, the movement of vaccinated
zoo animals, an extension of the application of a Community-wide
ban on swill feeding to include "hobby" and wild animals,
the cleansing and disinfection of dilapidated and historic buildings,
the use of unpasteurised milk for cheese production, and the measures
to be taken when the disease is confirmed in wildlife.
1.6 He has also provided an update on the two main
points identified earlier. First, he confirms that it now appears
as though the Commission would have the right to impose emergency
vaccination in a Member State only where an outbreak threatens
to become widespread and where one or more other Member
States are at risk due to their geographical location or weather
conditions — a compromise which the Government considers
to be reasonable. Secondly, on the treatment of meat from vaccinated
animals, he says that the draft now provides that meat from animals
in the Protection and Surveillance Zones can be marketed domestically
without de-boning and maturing, and that the Government will be
seeking similar alternative conditions for the marketing of meat
from vaccinated animals, once testing has been completed.
1.7 Finally, the Minister has revised his earlier
partial Regulatory Impact Assessment, though, as the Government
has yet to receive from the industry the detailed data it needs
on the prospective costs and benefits, the changes arise principally
in the narrative, in order to reflect the various points identified
in paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6 above.
Conclusion
1.8 We are grateful to the Minister
for this update. We are drawing it to the attention of the House,
in advance of the recommended debate, which we understand will
take place in European Standing Committee A on 21 May.
|
