1 Control of avian influenza
| (26533)
8630/05
COM(05) 171
+ ADD 1
| Draft Council Directive on Community measures for the control of Avian Influenza
Draft Council Decision amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the veterinary field
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 23 November 2005
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 34-ii (2005-06), para 3 (13 July 2005) and HC 34-vi (2005-06), para 1 (19 October 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | December 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee A (decision reported on 19 October 2005)
|
Background
1.1 Avian influenza (AI) is a highly contagious disease of poultry
and other birds caused by different types of Influenzaviridae
virus, which may also spread to other animals and humans, usually
following direct contact with infected birds. However, the risks
depend upon the particular virus type, and those posed by the
so-called Low Pathogenic AI (LPAI) viruses are less than those
from Highly Pathogenic AI (HPAI) viruses, the latter having caused
a mortality rate in poultry as high as 90%, and been responsible
for the vast majority of AI cases reported in humans (and in all
cases where death has occurred). Since these latter strains posing
the greatest risk originate from the mutation of certain LPAI
viruses (types H5 and H7), and the Community animal health measures
currently in place apply only to HPAI, the Commission put forward
this document in April 2005, proposing that they should be replaced
by a new instrument, which would (among other things) extend them
to include LPAI capable of mutating into HPAI viruses.
1.2 In our Report of 13 July 2005, we noted that
the Commission had suggested that, although the human health risks
are primarily dealt with under separate measures,[1]
improved animal health controls would be of major importance in
reducing these. However, although the UK supported the Commission's
objectives, it had concerns that some detailed aspects of the
proposal might be disproportionate to the risks involved. We therefore
decided to reserve judgement until we had seen the Regulatory
Impact Assessment which the Government had promised to provide,
but we also said that we would be interested to know whether any
review was being carried out of the adequacy of the human health
measures cited by the Commission, and in particular what the Government's
view was on this.
1.3 We subsequently considered the promised Regulatory
Impact Assessment on 19 October 2005, in the light of which we
recommended the proposal for debate in European Standing Committee
A. However, in doing so, we also noted that the Minister
had not said whether any review was being carried out of the adequacy
of the Community's human health measures, and nor had he indicated
what the Government's views on this were. We therefore said that
we would like an answer to these points before the debate.
Minister's letter of 23 November 2005
1.4 The debate is due to take place on 30 November,
and we have received a letter of 23 November 2005 from the Minister
for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) setting
out the views he has received from the Department of Health and
the Health Protection Agency. They point out that:
"The EC does not have the same level of
competence on human health issues that it has over animal health.
The EC is encouraging member states to prepare for pandemic flu
and to be prepared for avian flu but this is very much through
sharing of information, plans and know-how as well as offering
diagnostic support where needed.
"The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC)
is a newly established body and any review of its functions and
work would be premature, and we in the Department of Health are
not aware of any proposed review. The ECDC does not have control
over the European Influenza Surveillance Scheme (EISS) and the
Department of Health is not aware that it is proposed that it
should.
"The EISS is undertaken through a network of
surveillance centres all collaborating to an agreed set of protocols.
This network brings in reports from GP surgeries across the EU
about influenza consultations. It enables a picture to be built
up rapidly about influenza activity across the flu season and
for year on year comparison and will indicate when the season
has peaked. Such networks exist for several diseases - e.g. there
is one for gastrointestinal diseases and one for Legionnaires'
disease - and they rely very much on the clinical specialists
in each country reporting cases and setting up the surveillance
participants in each country. This is an effective and relatively
cheap way of sharing surveillance information quickly. The EISS
is funded by the EC, but is not controlled by the EC. The UK is
a full participant in this network.
"The Department of Health's view of the EISS
is that it is very useful for the reason stated above and are
not proposing to review it.
"A review of the member states' plans is being
undertaken as a research project by the London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine (funded by Roche) and they will report."
Conclusion
1.5 Whilst we are grateful to the Minister for
this information, and are now reporting it to the House, it did
not reach us in time for us to deal with it before the debate
in European Standing Committee A. We have therefore suggested
that his letter should be added to the documents available to
the Standing Committee in connection with the debate.
1 For example, the establishment of the European Centre
for Disease Control and the European Influenza Surveillance Scheme. Back
| 
