4 Animal health law
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Not cleared from scrutiny
|
| Document details | Draft Regulation on animal health law
|
| Legal base | Articles 43(2), 114(3) and 168(4)(b) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, 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the existing measures being repealed over a transitional period,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
|
