Hansard

I will begin by talking broadly about the context of the legislative proposal from the European Commission, before focusing on the document in question.

The labelling of beef is largely covered by three distinct legislative areas. First, there are what are called protected geographical indications, of which Scotch beef is an example and protected denominations of origin, of which Orkney beef is an example. Those denominations are enabled under EC regulation 2081/92, which sought to define and protect regional foodstuffs, which are considered more important in continental Europe than they are in the United Kingdom.

Foodstuffs that are accredited with those denominations are permitted by that legislation to use a specific logo. For example, the limited amounts of Scotch beef that are being exported are packaged with a small flag symbol that I am led to believe is widely recognised in Europe. However, the regulations do not cover only beef. Other foodstuffs that are covered include Jersey potatoes, Newcastle brown ale, Parma ham and a host of French and Italian cheeses.

The second relevant sphere of legislation stems from EC regulation 820/97, entitled "Establishing a system for Identification and Registration of Bovines and Regarding the Labelling of Beef and Beef Products". That is the key piece of legislation that has given rise to one of the documents that is now before the Rural Affairs Committee. The legislation was created in response to the BSE-related events of 1996. The thinking behind it was that the legislation should increase consumer confidence and stabilise the European beef market by defining a system for the traceability of bovines and by defining a specific set of rules for labelling beef throughout the European Community.

That regulation provides a set of rules that must be adhered to by any operator or retailer—covering all parts of the chain from abattoir to retail butcher—who wishes to make a claim regarding the origin, characteristics or production conditions of fresh and frozen beef and veal. Regulation 820/97 included an exemption for beef that is labelled according to the regulations for protected geographical indications or protected denominations of origin. It also committed the European Commission to submit to the Council of Europe a report on the implementation of beef labelling systems in member states. That is the second document that is before the committee.

The regulation also specified that it would apply only until the end of 1999, when it would be superseded by a compulsory labelling system for beef and beef products from 1 January 2000. The proposed EC compulsory beef labelling regulation is the first of the two documents before the committee. As members might be aware, the compulsory system never made it through the required European legislative process in time to start on 1 January 2000. To fill the legal void created by the text of the earlier voluntary regulation 820/97, it was agreed that 820/97 would continue until 31 August 2000.

The third legislative sphere that affects the labelling of beef is place-of-origin or country-of-origin labelling legislation. That is covered by a number of bits and pieces of legislation, such as EC directive 79/112, which is implemented in Great Britain by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trades Descriptions Act 1968. Those regulations state that country-of-origin labelling is not compulsory unless failure to provide such information would be misleading. They also state that the indication of place of origin must not be misleading to the consumer or purchaser. Following consultation last year, the Scottish Executive has tightened the guidelines on enforcement of that legislative area by local authority trading standards officials.

I have tried to set out the relevant areas of legislation. We will now consider the two European documents that are before the committee. SP484 (EC Ref No 12030/99 COM(99) 487 final) is the report from the Commission to the Council on the operation of the voluntary beef labelling scheme in member states. I suggest that the document is of peripheral relevance and that the Commission's legislative proposal for a compulsory beef labelling system is of more concern.

The best way to describe the legislative proposal might be to walk quickly through its main elements. The document is split into three titles. Title 1 concerns the system of traceability and registration of bovines. That is largely non-controversial, as the proposed regulations would not alter their predecessors, as described in Council regulation 820/97.

Title 2 describes a compulsory labelling regime for beef and that is rather more contentious. In autumn 1999, the Scottish Executive embarked on a consultation exercise on proposals for such a regime and received a number of responses. Title 2 proposes that in the first instance—we must assume that that means from 1 September 2000—the labelling on all beef sold should contain

"a reference number or reference code ensuring the link between the meat and the animal or animals. This number may be the identification number of the individual animal from which the beef was derived or the identification number relating to a group of animals".

That is, essentially, a public health measure. The idea is that if there is point-source contamination, such as there was in the Belgian dioxin crisis, beef can be traced and recalled.

The second indication that is suggested is:

"the approval number of the slaughterhouse at which the animal or group of animals was slaughtered and the region or Member State or third country in which the slaughterhouse is established. The indication shall read: ‘Slaughtered in [name of the region or Member State or third country] [approval number]'."

The message that the Scottish Executive received in its consultation exercise was that—not surprisingly—the British consumer did not like the word slaughter—they might prefer something like "laid gently to rest".

The third proposed compulsory indication is:

"the approval number of the de-boning hall at which the carcass or group of carcasses were de-boned and the region or Member State or third country in which the de-boning hall is established. The indication shall read: ‘De-boned in: [name of the region or Member State or third country] [approval number]'."

There are three further indications:

"- the category of animal or animals from which the beef was derived,

- date of slaughter of the animal or animals from which the beef was derived,

- ideal minimum maturation period of the beef."

The proposed regulation then states:

"As from 1 January 2003, operators and organisations shall indicate also on the labels:

- Member State, region or holding, or third country, of birth,

- all Member States, regions or holdings, or third countries, where fattening took place,

- Member State, region or slaughterhouse, or third country, where slaughter took place,

- Member State, region or de-boning hall, or third country, where de-boning took place.

However, where the beef is derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and de-boned;

- in the same Member State,"

that can be truncated to

"‘Origin; [name of Member State]'"

and so on.

The proposed regulation then suggests some largely practical derogations that would relate to minced beef or beef trimmings. Producers of mince, especially in mainland Europe, may source the input as beef trimmings from any of a number of sources. The Commission's proposal makes the scheme operable; otherwise the list of animals might have to be rather larger than the pack of mince.

The proposed regulation then moves on to an additional voluntary labelling system. The compulsory proposals are geared towards traceability and country of origin. The voluntary labelling system is in place so that, if a retailer wants to describe any further aspect of the production of the meat, or special attributes of the meat, rules are set out that are not dissimilar from the voluntary labelling system for beef that is in force in Scotland. That proposal is generally uncontroversial, as it largely replicates the current system that is described in EC regulation 820/97.

Title 3 of the regulation is "Common provisions", and sets out the ways in which the regulations relating to the traceability and registration of bovines, and the labelling of beef, should be enforced in member states.

Subsequent to the publication last year of the Commission's proposal, it was discussed in Council working groups. Given its legislative basis, the European Parliament has also been actively scrutinising the proposed regulation through a procedure called co-decision. Common positions have emerged from the Council working groups—which have been drawn together by the Portuguese presidency—that are, by and large, quite favourable to the Scottish position, by which I mean the position that was identified over the past year through our consultation exercise.

Several significant developments emerged from that common position. First, there has been the dropping of the last three indications of the first phase of the compulsory scheme. Those are:

"- the category of animal or animals from which the beef was derived,

- date of slaughter of the animal or group of animals from which the beef was derived,

- ideal minimum maturation period of the beef."

Those three indications were deemed rather superfluous, and I am pleased that there seems to be no will in other member states to persist with them.

A further useful element seems to be emerging from the strands that the Portuguese presidency is bringing together, for example, the inclusion of an explicit clause that states that the compulsory labelling shall operate "without prejudice" to other relevant legislation.

That is key. Scotch beef—beef that is eligible for the protected geographical indication—by and large trades at around 5 or 10 per cent above the price for the equivalent English beef or non-eligible beef produced in the United Kingdom.

There is a slight anomaly: a proportion of the beef that is entitled to be called Scotch is from animals that are born outwith Scotland. The industry has expressed strongly to the Executive that that could threaten the Scotch beef label. However, the Portuguese amendment about operating without prejudice means, in effect, that a label will have the country of origin—for example, "Country of origin: UK"—and another label that says "Scotch beef" with a small PGI flag.

That is not yet cast in stone because, under the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament has still to vote on this matter in plenary. I understand that, following that, a common position between the Parliament and the European Council will have to be sought.

That is all that I would like to say at the moment, but I will happily field any questions from members of the committee.