2 Official feed and food controls
| (24270)
6090/03
COM(03) 52
| Draft Regulation on official feed and food controls.
|
| Legal base | Articles 37, 95 and 152(4)(b) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 21 October 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xvi (2002-03), paragraph 1 (26 March 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | December 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and political important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee C (decision reported on 26 March 2003)
|
Background
2.1 In recent years, the Commission has issued a number of major
documents dealing with the general principles governing food law
in the Community, notably a White Paper[2]
in January 2000, which, in addition to proposing the establishment
of an independent European Food Authority (EFA), addressed a number
of more specific issues. These included the internal and external
controls needed to ensure that feed and food businesses comply
with the relevant legislation, and the White Paper was followed
in February 2003 by the present proposal, which seeks to set out
how the principles governing official feed and food controls should
be interpreted and implemented.
2.2 The contents of the document, and the UK's initial
reactions to it, were set out at some length in our Report of
26 March 2003, but, in essence, it proposed the introduction of
a new approach under which the various aspects of national control
within the Community would be combined into one integrated process
for all feed and food, embracing all product sectors and aspects
of the feed and food chain. In particular, this would involve
the drawing up of guidelines by the Commission; the preparation
by Member States, and maintenance of, a multi-annual control plan;
the auditing by the Commission of those plans; and, where necessary,
the annual updating of plans to reflect changing circumstances.
In parallel with this, the Commission proposed changes in Community
controls in third countries, which, because of resource limitations,
it says should be prioritised on the basis of four broad categories
(the applicant countries, countries which have negotiated veterinary
agreements with the Community, countries which have special arrangements
with the Community, and all other third countries).
2.3 We were told in an Explanatory Memorandum of
3 March 2003 that the UK broadly welcomed the overall objectives
and aims of the proposal, which in many respects simply consolidated
existing arrangements. However, in addition to a more general
need to identify the possible resource implications, the Explanatory
Memorandum highlighted two specific aspects of the proposal. One
was the impact on industry of a requirement that fees should be
levied where detection of non-compliance leads to greater than
normal control activities, whilst the other arose from the proposal
to list a common minimum set of serious offences under Community
feed and food law for which Member States would have to impose
criminal penalties, where these offences are committed intentionally
or through serious negligence and could lead to unsafe feed or
food being placed on the market. In the latter case, the GovernmentGovernments
view suggested that the proposal infringed the principle of
subsidiarity, and would be contrary to the UK view that, in line
with the European Courts case law, Community measures may provide
that breaches of the law they lay down must be subject to effective,
proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, but that it is for a Member
State to decide whether such sanctions should be criminal in nature.
2.4 In commenting that the document, though both
detailed and technical, nevertheless bore upon an area of considerable
political and public health importance, and gave rise to important
legal and subsidiarity questions on the proposed approach to criminal
sanctions, we decided on 26 March 2003 to recommend it for debate
in European Standing Committee C. In doing so, we noted that
quantified information on the possible costs might not be available
for some time, but that the then Greek Presidency was apparently
aiming for agreement in the Council by the end of June. Consequently,
although we said that such a timetable struck us as ambitious,
we stressed the importance of the proposal being debated well
before any such agreement was reached.
Minister's letter of 21 October 2003
2.5 We understand that the debate is to be held on
29 October, and we have now received a letter of 21 October from
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health at
the Department of Health (Miss Melanie Johnson), enclosing an
updated Regulatory Impact Assessment prepared following the Government's
public consultation on the proposal. This suggests that, apart
from the point already identified regarding the costs of any additional
controls arising from non-compliance, the new arrangements should
not for the most part impose any significant burdens on industry
as compared with the existing controls within the UK, and that
the main implications would arise on the new controls proposed
for imported produce, particularly that of non-animal origin,
probably amounting to some £3-4 million a year. There would
also be additional costs, perhaps amounting to some £1.25
million for the various national and local bodies concerned with
enforcement. The main benefit arising from the proposal would
lie in its contribution to reducing food-borne diseases, which
the Assessment points out are difficult to quantify. However,
it suggests that, as a very rough estimate, there could be an
annual saving of some £8 million a year for the three most
important food-borne intestinal diseases. These various figures
are summarised in the Assessment as giving rise to discounted
costs of £29.2 million over a ten-year period, and to corresponding
benefits of £67.9 million.
Conclusion
- We have noted this Assessment,
which we are simply drawing to the attention of the House in advance
of the debate in European Standing Committee C on 29 October.
2 (20875) 5761/00; see HC 23-x (1999-2000), paragraph
2 (1 March 2000). Back
|
