JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 12

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

Documents relating to EU scrutiny have been circulated by the clerk to the committee. The documents have been referred to us by the Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny. The documents are contained in 3.1 Com (2003) 52 proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on official feed and food controls. The proposal lays down the rules to be respected by the competent authorities responsible for carrying out official controls and the tasks of the European Commission with regard to the organisation of these controls. The proposal results from a review of the existing community rules and covers the entire range of activities covered by the food and feed law, including feed and food safety and also other aspects relating to consumer protection, such as food and feed labelling.

In addition, the Commission's control services will concentrate on evaluating the competent authorities' capacity and training to deliver national surveillance and control systems through audits and inspections by the food and veterinary office of the European Commission.

I am sure members will agree that any measures, from a consumer perspective, that seek to improve controls and inspection measures on food and feed at local, regional, national and Union level must be welcomed.

There are obligations in the proposed directive requiring a detailed plan to include such a national approach for the supervision, monitoring and inspection of hygiene controls for food and feed within a Union approach. Do members have comments on the proposed directive?

Deputy Upton

I wish to comment on the proposal for regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on official feed and food controls. This is a matter to which we should give significant consideration. The Department of Agriculture and Food raised a few salient points in relation to it, one of them being which Department should take responsibility for this area. The lead Department is the Department of Agriculture and Food but it points out, quite rightly, that it could be as important to the Department of Health and Children, for example. Maybe that is something we should discuss at length or at least give further consideration to, although perhaps not today. There is the question of a national reference laboratory which is important and is something we should definitely support. There is also the question of the national liaison body. These are issues on which maybe the committee should have some views.

Chairman

Do members think we should invite the officials and representatives from the Food Safety Authority to discuss this?

Deputy Upton

That would be very useful. It might be useful to invite somebody from the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Agriculture and Food, as the lead Department, and possibly the Food Safety Authority.

Deputy Ferris

I agree with Deputy Upton, it is a very good suggestion. It is necessary that we are fully au fait with this.

Chairman

Does everyone agree with that? Do members have any other comments?

Deputy Carty

I do not know whether this is in order but would it be possible to have a joint meeting with the Joint Committee on Health and Children?

Chairman

That could be looked into.

Deputy Carty

Would it be a good idea?

Chairman

Yes.

Deputy Carty

You could share the Chair.

Chairman

I would not worry about the Chair. That is the least of our worries.

Deputy Carty

It might not be in order.

Chairman

There is no reason that could not be done. I will certainly look into it.

Deputy Carty

It would save us from having two meetings and would avoid duplication.

Chairman

That is agreed.

I refer to 3.2 Com (2003) 117 - proposal for regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on maximum levels of pesticides in products of plant and animal origin. This proposed regulation will replace four Council directives relating to the fixing of maximum residue levels, MRLs, for pesticides in food of plant and animal origin. It will consolidate and simplify existing legislation in this area and define the roles of different agencies, in particular that of the European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, in the process.

The main aim of the proposal is to ensure that the presence of residues of pesticides in or on food or feed in the Union, whether domestically produced or imported, does not present an unacceptable risk for human or animal health and is not used as a non-tariff trade barrier. Once the regulation comes into force for MRLs for plant protection products it will become harmonised after a traditional phase in period and will thenceforth only be set at European level. At present member states can set their own national MRLs in the absence of Union MRLs.

There are implications for Ireland as we will now be obliged to draw up and implement annual control programmes for both feed and food. The proposal will not impact significantly on the feed side because it involves only modifications of the extensive controls currently in operation. There will be some impact in the areas of methodologies used by laboratories and formal training staff operating the controls. The proposed regulation will also impact on the work of the FSAI and its official agencies in the area of food control.

The committee may wish to vote that the Department of Agriculture and Food welcomes the proposal but wishes to come to a more detailed understanding of certain elements of the measure. This process will commence this month but it is anticipated that the negotiating period could take two years. Do members have any comments to make on the proposal?

Deputy Upton

I would say, more or less, the same as I said in regard to the previous recommendation. This is highly technical and it would be very difficult for us as a committee to offer a view on what the minimum residue level should be. Therefore, it is important that we follow the process already set out and that we get the technical advice from those working on such matters on a daily basis.

Chairman

Are there any other comments? Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

I refer to 3.3 Com (2002) 736 - proposal for a Council directive on Community measures for the control of foot and mouth disease Directive 92/46/EEC. An updated note has been received from the Department of Agriculture and Food and has been circulated. Do members have any comments? Would members like a bit of time to go through it or will we defer it to another day?

Deputy Upton

This relates to the introduction of emergency vaccination and, potentially, has huge implications from a trading point of view, particularly for meat and milk products. It might be useful if the chairman or one or two members of the expert committee set up to look at the foot and mouth outbreak at the time were available to talk to us. It seems from what is presented here that there is no difficulty with it. It will go to the Council of Ministers in June so we really have very little time. The issue of the vaccination of animals against foot and mouth disease is potentially very important. It might be useful if somebody gave us an overview on it and their views on the positive and negative sides of it.

Deputy Ó Fearghaíl

I concur with Deputy Upton. This would represent a substantial change in the approach we successfully adopted last year. We should not sign up to this without having the expert advice of the people who were in the front line of defence on the last occasion, the people best qualified to advise us on something like this. I concur with Deputy Upton that we should invite those people in to hear their views.

Deputy Ferris

On reading this, it seems to create a fire wall to prevent the spread of disease. On the face it, it seems like a very good idea - the vaccination of animals and their slaughter afterwards. I would like to know more about it because most of the disease spread during the last outbreak was maliciously done by unscrupulous individuals transporting cattle from one affected area to another. We need to know more about it.

Chairman

Is that agreed?

Deputy Wilkinson

I agree with asking the experts to talk to us about it. We saw what happened when the disease took hold and became rampant through the countryside, resulting in the awful slaughter of animals. Everything should be done to prevent that. We need to know more about these proposed measures.

Chairman

Is it agreed to invite the officials to attend the committee? Agreed. We will do so as soon as possible. If we need to hold two meetings in the one week to facilitate everybody we will do so. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Clerk to the committee has circulated documents relating to a number of European Union proposals where it is the recommendation of the Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny that no further scrutiny is required. The documents include Com (2002) 706, proposal for a Council regulation adopting autonomous and transitional measures concerning the importation of certain processed agricultural products originating in Poland; Com (2002) 771, amended proposal for regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on additives for use in animal nutrition; Com (2003) 14, proposal for Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto in agricultural products and foodstuffs; Com (2003) 89, proposal for Council regulation authorising the offer and delivery for direct human consumption of certain wines imported from Australia which have undergone oenological practices not provided for in Regulation (EC) No. 1493/1999; Com (2003) 103, proposal for regulation of the European Parliament and Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 999/2001 as regards the extension of the period of transitional measures.

The committee may wish to note that in relation to the proposal Com (2003) 14, proposal for Council regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto in agricultural products and foodstuffs, the Committee on European Affairs Sub-committee on EU Scrutiny was of the view that it is important to ensure that such labelling will not mislead the consumer to think that products produced outside the EU are EU produced and that this should be communicated to the Department of Agriculture and Food. This is something about which we are all concerned.

Deputy Upton

The labelling issue is very important. The Minster formed an expert committee which recently produced a document on labelling matters. It might be helpful if the committee chairman addressed this committee on the question of the labelling aspects of food. There are concerns relating to products outside the EU, namely, that they should always be of comparable standards to EU products. Their labelling would be significant.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it also agreed to concur with the recommendations of the Committee of European Affairs sub-committee, with the exception of the points raised by Deputy Upton? Agreed.

The following proposal has been circulated by the Clerk and adopted prior to scrutiny: Com (2003) 19, authorisation for the use of avilanigein as a growth promoter in feed for turkeys. The proposal is for noting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The following proposal was sent to the committee for information purposes only: Com (2003) 46, proposal to harmonise national laws on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU. A further objective of the proposal is to establish a general framework for the exchange of information between the responsible authorities. Is it agreed to note the content of the proposal? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.30 p.m. and adjourned at 3.35 p.m.