Ninth Report of Session 2013-14 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


6   Official controls for the application of food law

(34922)

9464/13

COM(13) 265

+ ADDs 1-2

Draft Regulation on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material and plant protection products

Commission staff working document — Executive summary of the impact assessment accompanying the document

Legal baseArticles 43(2), 114 and 168(4)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
Document originated6 May 2013
Deposited in Parliament16 May 2013
DepartmentFood Standards Agency
Basis of considerationEM of 3 June 2013
Previous Committee ReportNone
Discussion in CouncilSee para 6.7 below
Committee's assessmentLegally and politically important
Committee's decisionNot cleared; further information awaited

Background

6.1  In order to ensure that the substantial body of EU legislation which seeks to prevent or reduce the health risk to humans, animals and plants which may arise along the agri-food chain, a legislative framework for official controls has been established through Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004. This places a general obligation on Member States to ensure that such controls are carried out regularly; requires them to designate competent authorities to undertake this task in accordance with established operational criteria; specifies the basis on which sampling and analysis should take place by accredited laboratories in accordance with internationally accepted protocols; sets out provisions governing crisis management, including contingency plans; details the controls to be applied to feed and food from third countries, and the action to be taken in cases of non-compliance; and requires Member States to ensure that adequate financial provisions are available, if necessary by imposing fees and charges (with mandatory fees being required for certain purposes).[17]

The current proposal

6.2  According to the Commission, an extensive review of the Regulation has highlighted a number of cases where the burden it imposes could be reduced by eliminating redundant requirements or by allowing a more proportionate and flexible approach. It has therefore sought in this proposal to simplify the overall legislative framework, and in the process to integrate the rules currently applicable to official controls in specific areas. More specifically, the proposal would:

  • broaden the scope of the rules on official controls to encompass controls on plant health and plant reproductive material, so as to consolidate an integrated approach within the agri-food chain, and eliminate any duplication or inconsistency;
  • introduce a degree of flexibility and proportionality in the accreditation to EU international standards of laboratories carrying out analysis in the context of official controls;
  • increase the effectiveness of administrative assistance and cooperation among Member States to deal with cases of cross-border non-compliance;
  • introduce a uniform set of rules for controls carried out at EU borders on animals and goods from third countries to overcome the existing fragmentation and improve their prioritisation based on risk: this would include the introduction of Border Control Posts to cover all animals and products, and a Common Health Entry Document for prior notification of arrival and the recording of official controls and decisions (for which electronic handling would be mandatory);
  • increase the clarity of rules governing the transparency of controls by establishing what information should be made available to the public;
  • amend the current system of fees to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to official controls for their effective implementation and to reduce the dependency of the control system on national budgets: in particular, there would be an increase in the number of controls for which mandatory fees would apply (although there would also be a mandatory exemption for micro-businesses employing fewer than ten people, and whose annual turnover or annual balance sheet does not exceed €2 million); and
  • require Member States to lay down rules in order to enforce the Regulation by way of effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.

The Government's view

6.3  In her Explanatory Memorandum of 3 June 2013, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Public Health (Anna Soubry) says that, in general, the proposed Regulation is in line with key UK policy objectives of ensuring the delivery of a high level of public protection, simplifying legislation and reducing the regulatory burden on industry, noting also that effective official controls underpin EU imports and the ability of Member States to export to third countries. She also comments that the proposal is part of a wider package designed to introduce improvements in existing EU legislation, and to increase harmonisation and effectiveness of controls in the agri-food chain, and that it will be important to establish policy and legal coherence across the various measures.

6.4  The Minister adds that the most significant change to the existing framework relates to the issue of fees, pointing out that, whilst the proposal builds on the current system of mandatory fees, it would substantially increase the number of controls to which these would apply. In particular, she notes that fees will be imposed on significant numbers of farmers, processors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and caterers across the EU, and will seek to recover the full cost of controls delivery. She says that this will require full transparency, noting the proposal will set out the relevant cost elements to be considered in the calculation of fees. However, she points out that the proposed mandatory exemption for micro-businesses is not in line with the Commission's original intention to give Member States the option to exempt micro-businesses, thus reflecting its new policy on minimising the regulatory burden on small businesses.

6.5  The Minister goes on to say that, whilst the UK supports the Commission's objective of simplifying current legislation and developing a more uniform approach to official controls, careful analysis of the proposed provisions is needed to ensure that the final text remains true to the principles of better regulation, and supports a risk-based approach to controls. In particular, it will be necessary to consider the changes in the way official controls are funded, and to assess how the major increase in the number of controls subject to mandatory charging and the proposed exemption of micro-businesses could work in practice, with both of these aspects having implications for the current UK approach, which involves a range of fee collection and exemptions. She also says that it will be necessary to ensure that the requirement on Member States to provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties would not involve the imposition of criminal sanctions (which she suggests would mean that a Title V legal base should be cited which would engage the UK opt-in under Protocol 21 of the TFEU).

6.6  The Minister says that the main financial implications of the proposal will be for industry, but that these have yet to be fully quantified, and will be explored further during the public consultation, when an impact assessment will be further developed. She also notes that the Commission has proposed a significant number of both delegated acts (for example, to lay down additional rules for carrying out official controls in specific sectors, and establishing minimum frequency of certain controls and additional tasks and responsibilities of the competent authorities) and implementing acts (for example, to establish model forms to the provision of information to the Commission or other Member States, and detailed rules for approving pre-export controls). She says that the Government will carefully consider whether their proposed use is justified, and in line with the EU's competence and the principles of subsidiarity, adding that the proposal confers these powers for an indeterminate period of time, whereas the UK's preference is for a fixed period.

6.7  As regards timing, the Minister indicated that meetings will continue under the Lithuanian Presidency in the second half of 2013, but that, as the proposal is part of a complex package, it is unlikely that the proposal will be agreed between the Council and the European Parliament before the Parliament elections in June 2014.

Conclusion

6.8  Given the crucial need for food law to be effectively applied, the legal measures underpinning official controls within the EU are clearly a matter of the highest importance, and, for that reason, we are drawing to the attention of the House this draft Regulation which seeks to simplify the current legislation and develop a more uniform approach.

6.9  At the same time, we note that, whilst the Government sees the general thrust of the proposal as being in line with UK policy objectives and the principle of subsidiarity, it also considers that it gives rise to a number of issues on which further consideration and clarification is required, including the issue of fees; the requirement for Member States to impose effective penalties; and the proposed reliance on a significant number of delegated and implementing measures to be enacted by the Commission. In addition, the Government has said that it will be developing an impact assessment during its forthcoming public consultation on the proposal.

6.10  In particular, we note the Government's concern about whether the proposal would require Member States to impose criminal sanctions. Whilst we welcome the Government's view that the UK's JHA opt-in under Protocol 21 to the EU Treaties would only be engaged on the citation of a Title V legal base, we would urge the resolution of this issue as early as possible as it has an impact on the nature of Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposal. We ask the Minister to keep us fully informed of the progress made on this point.

6.11  Against this background, we think it would be prudent to hold the document under scrutiny, pending further information from the Government on these various issues.





17   These include the approval of feed establishments, meat inspection, milk production, the production and placing on the market of fishery and aquaculture products, and import controls. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 18 July 2013