Documents considered by the Committee on 17 December 2014 - European Scrutiny Committee Contents


4 Animal health law

Committee's assessment Politically important
Committee's decisionNot cleared from scrutiny
Document detailsDraft Regulation on animal health law
Legal baseArticles 43(2), 114(3) and 168(4)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
DepartmentEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs
Document numbers(34913), 9468/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 260

Summary and Committee's conclusions

4.1 The current framework for European animal health law comprises around 50 basic Directives and Regulations, some of which were adopted in the early 1960s, since when new diseases which were previously unknown have emerged, and trading conditions have changed radically. An independent review in 2004 concluded that, although the system was functioning properly, there was a need to address its complexity, and this led to the adoption of the EU Animal Health Strategy 2007-2013,[18] following which the Commission put forward in May 2013 this draft Regulation, which would seek to provide legal support for that Strategy, and establish a single, simplified framework.

4.2 As we noted in our Report of 10 July 2013, the Regulation would be divided into seven main parts, which deal respectively with general rules; notification, surveillance, eradication and disease freedom; disease preparedness, awareness and control; registration, approval traceability and movements; entry into the EU and export; emergency measures; and final and transitional provisions, and would replace the various individual measures currently in place. It would be underpinned by more detailed delegated and implementing acts ("tertiary legislation"), with the existing measures being repealed over a transitional period, when those new acts have been adopted.

4.3 We were told by the Government that, although certain aspects would need to be clarified during discussion in the Council, and the development of the more detailed tertiary legislation, the Commission's objectives broadly match UK goals, and that replacing the current Directives by a framework Regulation directly applicable in all Member States would give rise to considerable better regulation benefits. However, as a full Impact Assessment would not be possible until details to be contained in delegated and implementing acts were clearer, we decided to report the situation to the House, retain the document under scrutiny, and ask the Government to keep us informed of developments.

4.4 We have since received a number of progress reports from the Government, which have in the main focussed on the listing of species and diseases; the more general use of tertiary legislation, and the extent to which the Commission's powers in this area should be constrained; and the scope of the legislation. The letters also noted that the former European Parliament had adopted numerous amendments — some helpful, others not — and that, whilst the incoming Parliament could take a different view, it seemed likely that there would be major differences between it and the Council, which would require considerable work to reconcile.

4.5 We have now received a letter of 7 December 2014, which says that the Italian Presidency is expected to achieve consensus within the Council on a compromise text, and hopes to secure shortly a mandate enabling trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament to commence early in the New Year. It also summarises recent developments in the three areas outlined above, indicating that the Council's position meets the UK's concerns, but that, as the new European Parliament has endorsed the position taken by its predecessor, the differences between it and the Council now need to be debated during trilogue (where the Council's agreed position largely supports that of the UK).

4.6 The Government also reports that the incoming Latvian Presidency regards this dossier as a priority, and expects the trilogue discussions to be concluded by April 2015, with a vote in the Council before June. It regards this timetable as realistic, and says that it will necessitate seeking clearance of the proposal ahead of such a vote.

4.7 Although we decided it would be sufficient simply to note the earlier updates provided by the Government without reporting these to the House, we think this would be a convenient moment to take stock of the position in the light of the information we have now received. This makes clear the UK's general support for the underlying aim behind the Commission's proposal, and for the basic structure envisaged under which certain matters would be contained in the basic Regulation, whilst others would be dealt with in so-called tertiary legislation, thereby providing the degree of operational flexibility needed in this area. It also says that the position which the Council has now reached on the text is acceptable to the UK, the main question now being to reconcile this with that of the European Parliament. We also note — and accept — that any more detailed analysis will necessarily depend upon the content of the subsequent delegated and implementing acts.

4.8 In view of this, we have considered carefully our handling of this document. Given what the Government has told us, we think it unlikely we would see any need for further consideration by the House on the basis of the position reached in the Council. On the other hand, we hesitate to release the proposal from scrutiny, whilst uncertainty still exists over the position of the European Parliament and the outcome of the forthcoming trilogue discussions. We would therefore be grateful if the Minister could, as he has promised, continue to keep us informed of any further important developments. The draft Regulation remains under scrutiny.

Full details of the document: Draft Regulation on animal health law: (34913), 9468/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 260.

Background

4.9 European animal health law is currently focused on preventing and controlling significant transmissible diseases, as well as their effect on international trade in animals and animal products. The current framework comprises around 50 basic Directives and Regulations, some of which were adopted in the early 1960s, since when new diseases which were previously unknown have emerged, and trading conditions have changed radically.

4.10 An independent review in 2004 concluded that, although the system was functioning properly, there was a need to address its complexity, the lack of an overall strategy, an insufficient focus on disease prevention, and possible improvements to intra-EU trade. This led to the adoption of the EU Animal Health Strategy 2007-2013, and in May 2013 the Commission put forward this draft Regulation, which would seek to provide legal support for that Strategy, and establish a single, simplified framework setting out the objectives, scope and principles of regulatory intervention, enabling a quick reaction in case of emerging diseases, ensuring consistency across the animal health field, reducing the impact of animal diseases on animal and public health, animal welfare, the economy and society, and ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market in this area.

4.11 As we noted in our Report of 10 July 2013, the Regulation would replace the various individual measures currently in place, and would be underpinned by more detailed delegated and implementing acts ("tertiary legislation"), with the existing measures being repealed at dates to be determined by the Commission over a transitional period, when those new acts have been adopted. In addition, the Regulation would be divided into seven main parts, which deal respectively with general rules; notification, surveillance, eradication and disease freedom; disease preparedness, awareness and control; registration, approval traceability and movements; entry into the EU and export; emergency measures; and final and transitional provisions.

4.12 We were told by the Government that the Commission's objectives broadly match UK goals, although it added that certain aspects would need to be clarified during discussion in the Council, and the development of the more detailed tertiary legislation, and we set out in Annex A of our Report a detailed list of points which it had identified. However, the Government also said that replacing the current Directives by a framework Regulation directly applicable in all Member States would give rise to considerable better regulation benefits, and lead to greater consistency of application across the EU, as well as making it possible in future to see more clearly how all the related measures fit together.

4.13 It added that a full Impact Assessment would not be possible until details to be contained in the delegated and implementing acts were clearer, and, in view of this, we said that we could do little more at that stage than report the situation to the House, retain the document under scrutiny, and ask the Government to keep us informed of developments.

Subsequent developments

4.14 We have since received a number of progress reports from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice). In the main, these have focussed on the listing of species and diseases (where the principal issue has been the extent to which these represent an essential element, and hence need to be included in the base text, rather than — as proposed — dealt with by an implementing act); the more general use of tertiary legislation, and the extent to which the Commission's powers in this area should be constrained, either by the need to consult or by being time-limited; and the scope of the legislation, and in particular whether it should include areas covered by separate EU legislation, notably that on the non-commercial movement of pets, and cattle identification and beef labelling. The letters also noted that the former European Parliament had adopted numerous amendments — some helpful, others not — adding that, whilst it was open to the incoming Parliament to take a different view, it seemed likely that there would be major differences of view between it and the Council, which would require considerable work to reconcile.

4.15 The Minister's most recent letter of 7 December 2014 says that the Italian Presidency is expected to achieve consensus within the Council on a compromise text, and hopes to secure from COREPER this week a mandate enabling trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament to commence early in the New Year. It also summarises developments on the most important outstanding issues as being:

Listing of species and diseases and disease categorisation

Despite a wide range of opinions among Member States, a compromise has been reached on the listing and categorising of species and diseases, under which five diseases[19] would be listed in the base Regulation, with the rest listed by implementing act. This follows the advice of the Council Legal Services, which considers an Implementing Act possible, provided additional disease categorisation criteria are included in the base text. The compromise is very close to the UK's initial position, which favours the certainty and permanence of listing the five diseases in the base Regulation, whilst recognising that listing others by implementing act provides the EU with the flexibility needed to adapt its regulatory framework to new and emerging diseases, whilst assuring adequate Member State oversight. The Government therefore supports this compromise, and will seek to avoid any changes to it.

Tertiary Legislation

On the other hand, whilst this approach provides flexibility, it makes the impact of the proposal difficult to assess in advance of the adoption of the detailed rules. However, the Government says that it is reassured by the proposals published by the Presidency on the structure of the tertiary legislation, which make it clear that Member States will be consulted throughout the process, and which have also narrowed many more of the Commission's delegated powers. Also, at the suggestion of the Council Legal Services, it is now proposed that there should be a protected period of at least two years reserved for Member States to enact all tertiary legislation, and adjust domestic legislation as necessary, once the detailed content of delegated and implementing acts has been agreed. The Government says that it will in the coming months pay particular consideration to the timescale and practicalities of determining this tertiary legislation, so as to ensure that the UK is able to effectively use all available opportunities to shape the detail of the Regulation.

Scope of the Regulation

The Government says that the Council position on the non-commercial movement of pet animals will be that this falls within the scope of the Animal Health Regulation, as the Commission originally proposed. Although there remain some specific details which need further discussion, these are unlikely to be problematic, and the Government believes that this approach fits well with the aims of the proposal to collate all European regulation of animal health into a single framework for flexibility, simplicity and effectiveness. It has also received helpful assurances that the principles agreed when the current measure[20] was renegotiated in 2013 will not be reopened for discussion.

4.16 The Minister says that the European Parliament voted through a report on the proposal in its final plenary session on 15 April, which the new Parliament endorsed by means of a revote in September, and that the differences between the Council and European Parliament texts now need to be debated during trilogue. He says that the Council has an agreed position on the amendments proposed by the Parliament, which largely supports the UK's negotiating principles, and that the Government will engage with the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs in the Parliament during the trilogue negotiations, so as to minimise the risk of deviation from these principles.

4.17 Finally, the Minister reports that officials recently met with the incoming Latvian Presidency to discuss its plans for the dossier, which it considers to be a priority. Its expectation is that the trilogue discussions will be concluded by April 2015, suggesting a vote in the Council before June — a timetable which he regards as realistic, and which he says will necessitate seeking clearance of the proposal ahead of such a vote.

Previous Committee Reports

Ninth Report HC 83-ix (2013-14), chapter 2 (10 July 2013).


18   see (28950), 13292/07: Thirty-eighth Report HC 41-xxxvi (2006-07), chapter 5 (24 October 2007). Back

19   The five diseases to be listed in the Regulation would be: foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever, African swine fever, high-path avian influenza, and African horse sickness. Back

20   Regulation (EU) No. 576/2013. Back


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 23 December 2014