9 Control of certain transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies
| (26216)
15874/04
COM(04) 775
| Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 laying down the rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
|
| Legal base | Article 152(4)(b); co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 8 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 38-viii (2004-05), para 3 (10 February 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | June 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
9.1 As a result of the BSE crisis, the Community adopted Regulation
999/2001,[16] laying
down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). This aimed to
target the entire production chain, and included rules for monitoring
TSEs in cattle, sheep and goats, a prohibition on animal feeding,
new arrangements governing trade (both within the Community and
involving third countries) and the eradication of TSEs, and a
system for classifying countries according to their BSE status.
Subsequently, Regulation 1774/2002[17]
introduced new rules for the handling of specified risk materials
(SRM) and animals infected by TSEs. Each of these measures was
considered by our predecessors, and was debated in European Standing
Committee A.[18]
9.2 In the light of new developments since the adoption
of Regulation 999/2001, the Commission put forward in December
2004 this document proposing a number of amendments which were
set out in our predecessors' Report of 10 February 2005. In that
Report, our predecessors also commented that, although the control
of TSEs clearly remained a subject of some importance, the various
amendments proposed appeared to reflect experience gained in recent
years, and, for the most part, to be uncontroversial. However,
they went on to note that the Government was seeking clarification
on two elements in the proposal. First, it was concerned that
the change proposed in the definition of mechanically recovered
meat differed significantly from the current interpretation, which
the UK believed should be retained. Secondly, it considered that
the proposal to restrict the movement of bovine animals on a holding
where scrapie is suspected would be disproportionate to the risk
and not based on scientific evidence. Our predecessors therefore
decided to hold the document under scrutiny, pending further information
on these two points.
9.3 The document also addressed the fact that transitional
measures were intended to apply until countries had been categorised
by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) according to
their BSE risk, and that these had in 2003 been extended by two
years, to 30 June 2005. However, since the OIE would not now be
concluding the final categorisation of countries before that date,
it proposed that the application of the transitional measures
in the Regulation should be prolonged until 1 July 2007. This
was subsequently agreed separately, ahead of any agreement on
the remainder of the proposal.
Minister's letter of 8 May 2006
9.4 We have now received from the Minister for Local
Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare at the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) a letter of 8 May 2006
indicating that the Austrian Presidency is hoping to broker a
First Reading deal with the European Parliament, and that it has
produced a compromise document for consideration by the Council
in June. He says that the UK is content with this document. In
particular, the two points of previous concern have now been dealt
with satisfactorily, in that the definition of mechanically recovered
meat is now in line with that in the UK's own domestic legislation,
and the movement restrictions on holdings where scrapie is suspected
will apply only to sheep and goats, and would no longer affect
cattle.
Conclusion
9.5 We have noted that the points previously of
concern to the UK have now been resolved satisfactorily. In view
of this, and of our predecessors' assessment that this document
appeared otherwise to be uncontroversial and to reflect experience
gained in recent years, we are now content to clear it.
16 OJ No. L.147, 31.5.2001, p.1. Back
17
OJ No. L. 273, 10.10.2002, p.1. Back
18
(19751) 5196/99; see HC 34-xiii (1998-99), para 2 (17 March 1999),
HC 23-xxxi (1999-2000), para 1 (29 November 2000) and HC 28-vi
(2000-01), para 1 (14 February 2001). Stg Co Deb, European
Standing Committee A , 14 February 2001 and (21759) 12648/00;
see HC 28-iii (2000-01), para 2 (17 January 2001), HC 28-vii (2000-01),
para 3 (28 February 2001) and HC 28-viii (2000-01), para 2 (14
March 2001). Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee A,
7 March 2001. Back
|
