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 base | Articles 43(2), 114 and 168(4)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 6 May 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 16 May 2013
|
| Department | Food Standards Agency
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 3 June 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussion in Council | See para 6.7 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not 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
|
