14 Protective measures against plant
pests
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny
|
| Document details | Draft Regulation on protective measures against pests of plants
|
| Legal base | Article 43(2) TFEU; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Document numbers | (34934), 9574/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 267
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
14.1 The main aim of the current EU regulatory framework
for plant health is to prevent the entry and spread of imported
pests, and to impose measures where an outbreak occurs. It also
lays down rules on trade within the EU and for non-EU imports,
and lists harmful organisms which may be subject to specific control
measures. However, in view of the increased influx of dangerous
new pests, which are now able to survive in Europe as a result
of climate change, the Commission put forward in May 2013 a new
draft Regulation, which would repeal the existing Directive (2000/29/EC),
and update the current regime.
14.2 As we noted in our Report of 10 July 2013, the
main impact of the proposal would be in relation to controls on
imports and exports, plant passports, eradication and containment
measures, protected zones, and notification obligations, with
provision also being made for additional requirements to be developed
through delegated and implementing acts. The Government has broadly
welcomed the proposal as being consistent with its aim of achieving
faster and better targeted decision-making, and has pointed out
that, insofar as it builds on many of the elements of the current
regime, much of its content is already familiar. It added that,
as further requirements were expected to be adopted by delegated
and implementing acts, it was difficult to assess the impact at
this stage, but it went on to identify a number of significant
areas.
14.3 Since our earlier Report, we have received a
number of updates from the Government, which has now written to
set out the present position on the matters of most importance
to the UK in the light of a series of meetings of officials in
Brussels. It says that these are continuing under the Latvian
Presidency, and that a text could be agreed by the Council in
June, when the main issue for the UK would be the import strategy.
Given the limited time before the dissolution of Parliament and
the General Election, it has asked if we would be prepared to
release the document from scrutiny.
14.4 Although the Government supports the general
thrust of the proposal, it is clear that there are still a number
of outstanding points to be resolved, and, in normal circumstances,
our inclination would be to hold the document under scrutiny,
pending further developments. However, the Government has said
that the proposal could come before the Council for adoption in
the summer before it could realistically be considered by our
successor Committee, and we would not want to prevent a new Government
from agreeing a text which was in the UK's overall interest. Also,
on the strength of what the Government has told us, it seems unlikely
that any of the outstanding issues — though important —
would be of sufficient significance to warrant a recommendation
for debate in European Committee. We are therefore prepared to
release the proposal from scrutiny, but we would expect our successor
Committee to be provided in due course with a full account of
any decision taken by the Council.
Full details of the document:
Draft Regulation on protective measures against pests of plants:
(34934), 9574/13 + ADDs 1-2, COM(13) 267.
Background
14.5 Because of the danger to indigenous plants posed
by imported pests, the main aim of the current EU regulatory framework
for plant health — which is based on Council Directive 2000/29/EC
— is to prevent their entry and spread, and to impose measures
where an outbreak occurs. It also lays down rules on trade within
the EU and for non-EU imports, and lists harmful organisms which
may be subject to specific control measures. However, the Commission
says that the Directive has not been able to stop an increased
influx of dangerous new pests, which are now able to survive in
Europe as a result of climate change, and it therefore put forward
in May 2013 this new draft Regulation, which would repeal the
Directive, and update the current EU regulatory regime.
14.6 As we noted in our Ninth Report of 10 July 2013,
the main impact of the proposal would be in the following areas:
Controls on imports and exports
14.7 At present, import consignments from countries
outside the EU have to be accompanied by phytosanitary certificates
issued by the country of export, backed up by official inspections
at the point of entry. The proposal would develop the concept
of Quarantine Pests, which have the potential to cause serious
harm either to the EU as a whole or to defined Protected Zones,
and the Commission would be able to list up to 10% of Quarantine
Pests as Priority Pests and diseases, which would be subject to
enhanced controls. Criteria for determining the appropriate classification
of both Quarantine and Priority Pests would be set out in the
Regulation, which would permit temporary measures enabling a full
risk assessment to be made before permanent measures are imposed.
It would also remove the current exemption from official controls
for passenger baggage.
Union quality pests
14.8 So-called "quality pests", whose main
impact is essentially economic, are currently subject to control
under the Marketing Directives covering various types of plant
reproductive material, but would be transferred into this regime.
Plant passports
14.9 Plant passports, which are required for the
movement of certain material within the EU, can at present be
issued only by officially registered and authorised growers and
nurseries. In future, the registration requirement would be extended
to all professional operators undertaking planting, growing, production
and importation into the EU, and the list of materials subject
to the passport regime would be extended to include all plants
for planting and place new obligations on professional operators
issuing passports.
Eradication and containment measures
14.10 Although there is currently a general obligation
on Member States to take all necessary measures to prevent the
spread of listed harmful pests and diseases,[65]
they would also be obliged to have in place contingency plans
and eradication plans for priority pests, in order to prevent
their spread, and professional operators would be required to
take measures to eliminate pests and diseases and prevent their
spread, including the withdrawal of products from the market.
Protected zones
14.11 There is currently provision for Member States
to be granted Protected Zone status for areas which are free from
specified pests and diseases established elsewhere in the EU,
and this proposal would be aligned more closely with international
standards, and would be extended to include general surveillance
for EU Quarantine Pests and diseases and for Priority Pests.
Notification obligations
14.12 At present, Member States are required to notify
the Commission and other Member States of the presence, or suspected
presence, of harmful organisms, and there would in future be an
obligation on everyone to notify the official services in such
an event. At the same time, the official services would have an
obligation to notify professional operators and the public of
the presence of harmful organisms.
14.13 The new Regulation also provides for additional
requirements to be identified and developed through delegated
and implementing acts, with the latter including the listing of
quarantine pests, priority pests, quality pests and plants, plant
products and other objects to be regulated.
14.14 Our Report also noted that the Government had
broadly welcomed the proposal as introducing a new regime more
consistent with the UK's aim of achieving faster decision making;
better targeting of risk; and greater co-operation between plant
health inspectorates and plant health and customs services. It
also said that, as the proposal builds on many of the elements
of the current regime, much of its content is already familiar,
although some aspects could involve new and potentially more prescriptive
and costly requirements. However, it added that more clarification
was needed, and that further requirements were expected to be
adopted by delegated and implementing acts, making it difficult
to fully assess the impacts at this stage.
14.15 In the meantime, the Government said that:
· whilst the identification of Priority
Pests is a positive step, it would be preferable if these were
established according to well defined criteria, rather than the
proposed arbitrary 10% limit;
· whilst there was likely to be improved
plant health controls in Protected Zones, this could also result
in additional costs;
· the transfer of 'quality pests' from the
parallel plant reproductive material regime could lead to synergies
and efficiencies for growers and horticulturalists, although implementation
would require a robust approach;
· precautionary measures to prevent the
import of new, high-risk material from non-EU countries pending
an assessment of risk would address an important gap in the current
regime, although it would be important to ensure that the assessment
process was sufficiently robust whilst being proportionate and
efficient;
· the removal of the passenger baggage exemption
would address a gap in the current controls (although any exemptions
reintroduced via implementing acts could undermine the proposed
approach);
· aligning registration requirements for
both the plant health regime and the plant reproductive material
regime could lead to efficiencies and cost savings, although care
would be needed to ensure that this does not extend any further
than necessary; and
· the extension of plant passports is logical,
and should help facilitate trade, so long as there is adequate
flexibility to tie in with commercial practice.
14.16 In commenting on the complexity and technical
nature of the proposal, we also noted that, whilst the general
principles underlying it were in line with UK objectives, there
were a number of issues which needed to be clarified, including
the use of delegated and implementing acts by the Commission.
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
14.17 We have since received updates from the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Natural Environment and Science (Lord
de Mauley), most recently on 23 February 2015. He says that, following
a number of Council Working Group meetings under successive Presidencies,
the present position as regards the matters of most importance
to the UK is as follows:
The use of Tertiary Legislation
14.18 The use of tertiary legislation remains a concern,
with Member States expressing a preference for the use of implementing
acts rather than delegated acts so as to remove the need for negotiation
with the European Parliament on technical matters where expertise
rests with the Commission and Member States. A number of delegated
acts have been replaced by implementing acts, which the UK supports
— in particular the proposal to list individual pests and
diseases, with the criteria for doing so being contained within
the basic legislation, thereby achieving faster decision making.
However, further advice on this issue is awaited from the Council
Legal Services following consultation with the Commission Legal
Services and the European Parliament Secretariat.
Priority Pest List
14.19 An upper limit of 10% of currently listed Quarantine
Pests is still proposed for special status as 'Priority Pests',
and, whilst the UK has continued to question the logic of imposing
an arbitrary limit, it has received only limited support from
other Member States. The Commission has said that the arbitrary
figure has been set only for financial purposes and is willing
to explore the criteria for priority pests: and, on balance, the
Government feels that focussing on these is likely to be more
productive in ensuring that all pests of importance to the UK
are listed as priority pests. In particular, the Government does
not believe that establishing a priority pest list will in any
way limit the UK's ability to take action against those pests
and diseases which are of most concern.
Import Reverse Strategy
14.20 The proposal to strengthen the measures applying
to new import trade remains challenging, with options ranging
from a completely open system through to a closed system. The
UK is keen to see a strengthening of the existing measures relating
to imports, but is clear that these must be proportionate to the
risk and not in conflict with the principles contained in the
World Trade Organisation Sanitary/Phytosanitary Agreement. Of
the four options currently under consideration, the UK could go
along with either a German proposal for a closed system for high
risk woody plants, or a Greek (ex-Presidency) compromise for a
closed system for all plants for planting, but it opposes a French
proposal for a fully closed system as being disproportionate to
the risks involved and having the potential to impact significantly
on trade. It is currently involved in ongoing discussions in a
small informal working group of selected Member States, and will
continue to press for the adoption of measures which are proportionate
to the risks involved.
Registration and Plant Passporting
14.21 A key objective for the UK is to ensure that
the revised requirements for registration and plant passports
are proportionate, and avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the
industry. Thus, whilst it supports the extension of the plant
passports scheme to include all plants for planting, some of the
proposed measures are overly prescriptive, and it is therefore
looking to achieve a balanced and risk-based approach which provides
adequate safeguards and traceability.
Passenger Baggage Concession
14.22 Whilst the UK supports the removal of the exemption
from phytosanitary certification requirements for small quantities
of material being introduced into in passengers' baggage, the
proposal as it stands involves differing requirements for certain
countries, material and quantities, and is too complicated. The
UK would therefore like to see a simple and clear concession with
a limited range of commodities which will apply to all third countries.
14.23 The Minister concludes by saying that negotiations
at official level are continuing at pace under the Latvian Presidency,
and that, whilst a number of important issues remain to be resolved,
it is just possible that there could be an agreed Council text
in June, where the key issue, which would influence the UK voting
position, is the import strategy. He goes on to say that, in view
of the limited time before the dissolution of Parliament and the
General Election, he is keen that the proposal should clear Parliamentary
scrutiny at the earliest opportunity, and asks whether we would
now be prepared to agree to this on the basis of the information
he has provided.
Previous Committee Reports
Ninth Report HC 83-ix (2013-24), chapter 4 (10 July
2013).
65 More detailed eradication measures are covered in
pest-specific legislation. Back
| 
