3 Simplification of legislation on transport
rates and food hygiene
| (28467)
7371/07
+ ADDs 1-4
COM(07) 90
| Draft Regulation amending Regulation No 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs
|
| Legal base | Articles 75(3), 95 and 152(4)(b)EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 18 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 41-xx (2006-07), para 3 (2 May 2007)
|
| To be discussed in Council | (Possibly) May 2007
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | For debate in European Standing Committee (decision reported 2 May 2007)
|
Background
3.1 In November 2006, the Commission presented a Strategic Review
of Better Regulation in the European Union,[10]
which was followed in January 2007 by a more detailed Action Plan,[11]
highlighting a number of specific priority areas. It subsequently
put forward in March 2007 this draft Regulation, which sought
to address two of these areas. The first —
dealing with transport rates and conditions — did not appear
to raise any difficulties, but, as we noted in our Report of 2
May 2007, the second would have made a significant change to Regulation
(EC) No 852/2004,[12]
which sets out the conditions governing the hygiene of foodstuffs
within the Community.
3.2 In particular, that Regulation involves the transfer
of the principal responsibility away from enforcement authorities
and on to food businesses, and requires such businesses (other
than primary producers) to operate a fully-documented food safety
management system, based on the principle of Health Analysis and
Critical Control Points (HACCP). Although the Regulation provides
some flexibility, the Commission suggests that it would still
be extremely burdensome for smaller businesses, and has therefore
proposed that "micro-business" — defined as those
with less than 10 employees, and with a turnover of €2
million or less, and which predominantly sell food direct to the
final consumer[13] —
should be exempt from the HACCP provisions.
3.3 The Government had pointed out that Regulation
(EC) No 852/2004 applies to about 600,000 food businesses in the
UK, and includes a provision whereby procedures have to be based
on HACCP principles, allowing about two-thirds of those businesses
to benefit from this flexibility. However, although the Government
was supportive of the Commission's stated intention to reduce
the burden on small businesses, it also pointed out that the proposal
actually went further than this, in that it would exempt small
businesses from (for example) the requirement to identify and
control hazards to food safety, and that, by limiting the proposed
exemption to businesses of a given size, it did not distinguish
on the basis of the public health hazards involved. We were told
that the Government was preparing a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment,
which would form the basis of public consultation, but that the
proposal needed to be seen in the context of the deaths and ill
health arising from food-borne disease (put at £900 million
in the UK alone in 2005).
3.4 We also noted that we had received three representations
on this proposal, two of which had suggested that the flexibility
contained in the current legislation was sufficient, and that
a blanket exemption, based solely on the size of a business, could
lead to a rise in food-borne illness, and would significantly
increase the difficulties faced by enforcement authorities. The
remaining submission welcomed the prospective reduction in the
clerical and bureaucratic burden on small businesses, but it too
expressed certain reservations over the criteria on which any
exemptions would be based, and the lack of clarity about the way
in which these would be defined.
3.5 We commented that the proposal raised important
issues about the balance to be struck between deregulation, and
measures deemed necessary to improve food safety, and that it
was evident that there were concerns about the extent to which
the exemption proposed was based solely on the size of enterprise
involved. We therefore thought it right — without awaiting
the Government's Regulatory Impact Assessment — to recommend
that this aspect of the document should be debated in European
Standing Committee.
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 18 May
2007
3.6 We have now received from the Minister of State
for Public Health at the Department of Health (Caroline Flint)
a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 18 May 2007, enclosing
the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment. This suggests that
the proposal appears to have arisen entirely from the Commission's
consultation with European level groups, and that it is not clear
how far UK organisations were able to contribute through such
groups. The Assessment goes on to point out that about 542,000
food businesses in the UK have fewer than ten permanent staff
(of which about 368,000 are caterers, 166,000 retailers, and 8,000
involved in the distribution of food), and that the proposal might
benefit these by around £68 million each year. However, it
says that this must be viewed in relation to the incidence of
food-borne disease, where it points out that there were an estimated
765,000 cases in England and Wales in 2005, of which 17,300 required
hospitalisation, and some 470 resulted in death. It adds that,
insofar as the proposal would exempt about 6,000 certain higher
risk businesses, such as butchers' shops selling raw meat and
ready-to-eat food from the same premises, it would (depending
on the assumptions made) be cost beneficial only if the number
of cases of indigenous food-borne disease rose by no more than
15,000 -
38,000, and it also points out that risks could arise as well
if businesses cut staff simply in order to benefit from the exemption.
Another concern is the likely costs of enforcement arising from
the need to establish which businesses fall within the size threshold
or "predominantly" sell food direct to the final consumer.
Conclusion
3.7 Although we had decided on 2 May 2007 to recommend
the food hygiene aspects of this document for debate in European
Standing Committee before seeing the Government's Regulatory Impact
Assessment, the Assessment now provided not only provides a clear
justification for that decision, but also contains some information
which may be useful to those Members participating in the debate,
which we understand will take place on 11 June. We are therefore
drawing it to the attention of the House.
10 (28073) 15510/06: see HC 41-v (2006-07), para 6
(10 January 2007). Back
11
(28354) 5924/07: see HC 41-xi (2006-07), para 6 (28 February 2007). Back
12
OJ No. L 139, 30.4.04, p.1. Back
13
For example, bakeries, grocery shops, market stalls, fishmongers,
restaurants and bars. Back
|
