On 24 April 1997 the Temporary Committee held its constituent meeting and appointed Mr Böge rapporteur.

The Temporary Committee considered the Commission's follow up of the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE and the draft report at its meetings of 13 and 14 May, 10, 11 and 12 June, 16 and 17 June, 23 and 24 June, 14, 15 and 17 July, 1 and 2 September, 16, 17 and 18 September, 22, 23 and 24 September, 13, 14 and 15 October, 21 and 23 October, 27 and 28 October and 6 and 7 November 1997.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft report by 18 votes to 1.

The following Members of Parliament participated in the vote: Roth-Behrendt, chairman; Santini and Jové Peres, vice-chairmen; Böge, Berichterstatter; Fayot, Gillis (for Corrie), Graefe zu Baringdorf, Graenitz, Happart (for Baldarelli), Kofoed, Lambraki, Medina Ortega, des Places, Rack (for OomenRuijten), Redondo Jiménez, Trakatellis, Thyssen (for Bébéar), Whitehead and Willockx.

The report was forwarded to the Conference of Presidents on 10 November 1997. The Conference of Presidents decided at its meeting of 13 November 1997 to submit the report to plenary as the basis for an exchange of views, without the possibility of tabling amendments.

The Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE,

- having regard to the report of the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE (A4-0020/97),

- having regard to the decision of the European Parliament of 19 February 1997 on the conclusions of the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE(1),

- having regard to the progress reports submitted by the European Commission on 6 June, 9 July, 8 September and 8 October 1997,

A. whereas the European Parliament on the basis of its resolution of 19 February 1997 has succeeded, through the setting up of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE, the threat of a motion of censure and the establishment of a Temporary Committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE, in taking action on its rights vis-à-vis the Commission and achieving a position in institutional terms which now allows effective checks on the administration,

B. whereas in all measures to prevent and combat BSE preventative consumer protection must have absolute priority,

C. whereas following the most recent scientific publications there is now substantial proof that nvCJD in humans is in practice identical with BSE, being caused by the same infective agent,

I. CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE

1. Calls on the Conference of Presidents to forward this report to the European Parliament's standing committees and to its plenary for information and with the request to take appropriate measures;

2. Calls on the Conference of Presidents, on the basis of this report, to schedule a debate on the follow-up of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE by the European Commission at the earliest possible part-session of the European Parliament;

3. Welcomes the Commission's announcement that in future it will report twice a year to the European Parliament and the Council on further progress in the activities to strengthen consumer protection in general and to combat BSE in particular;

II. SUMMARY EVALUATION

4. Notes that the Commission has implemented completely or in part most of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE or has agreed to clear deadlines for implementation (see Fourth Progress Report, table A); the following should be noted in particular:

- point 1 (transparency-related recommendations)

- point 2 (monitoring, inspection, reorganization of Commission services)

- point 3 (public health protection; use of meat-and-bone meal) and

- point 5.4 (institution of proceedings for infringement of the Treaty);

5. Notes with satisfaction the considerable progress made in particular with regard to transparency, strengthening Community monitoring mechanisms and legislative initiatives which have been proposed or are in the process of adoption on public health and consumer protection;

6. Stresses that deficiencies which remain and areas where further action is needed will be dealt with in more detail in the conclusions on the individual points;

7. Notes that of the more than seventy recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE the following five points have not been implemented:

- point 5.1 (proposals for legislation for claiming back the costs for BSE)

- point 5.2 (disciplinary measures)

- point 5.3 (administrative proceedings against the United Kingdom)

- point 5.5 (proceedings against the British Government for the failure of the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Hogg to appear) and

- point 6.1 (use of the motion of censure against individual members of the Commission);

8. Recommends that the standing committees ascertain that proposed legislation is consistent with the aims laid down by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE;

9. Notes that since the committee of inquiry finished its work, the findings of scientific research have established a link between the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease and BSE, thus increasing the magnitude of the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry; notes that the breach of the export ban also became known only after the committee of inquiry's report was published and that the follow-up committee did not have a mandate to investigate new responsibilities or amend the committee of inquiry's assessment;

III. CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO BSE

(Note: The recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE were summarised by the rapporteur (cf. Working Document No 1 of 15 May 1997, PE 221.135), approved by the Temporary Committee in this form, and forwarded to the Commission as a structure for its progress reports. These recommendations are indicated in the text below in bold type. This is followed by the conclusions and recommendations of the Temporary Committee, in normal type and numbered sequentially).

1. Transparency of the action to combat BSE

1.1 Comprehensive information policy to guarantee the widest possible dissemination of relevant research data and findings

10. Welcomes the fact that the report of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE and the setting up of this committee has led to the Commission taking the first essential steps towards making the action to combat BSE transparent through information measures, both as regard the inspection reports and the work of the scientific committees (placing on the Internet, access to documents, presentation of minority opinions);

11. Points out, however, that real transparency will exist only when all the Commission Directorates-General keep the European Parliament adequately informed as part of the normal programme of work;

1.2 Reform of the rules governing the work of the advisory scientific committees

12. Notes that the Commission has still not improved the administrative procedures for reimbursing the expenses of the members of the advisory scientific committees and recalls the Commission's agreement to implement this measure by December 1997

13. Notes that the European Parliament's demand that, in the appointment of members of the advisory scientific committees, only objective professional qualifications should be taken into account and that a neutral and interdisciplinary science council should therefore be responsible for appointments has only been implemented in part;

1.2.6 Involvement of doctors of human medicine in animal health issues to assess possible risks to public health

14. Welcomes the fact that, in order to ensure an adequate representation of qualified experts in human medicine in the 'veterinary medicine measures in connection with public health' subgroup of the scientific veterinary committee, the Commission will readvertize the relevant selection procedure;

1.3 Setting up of a joint Commission and European Parliament body with a fixed term of office to monitor the implementation of the measures set out in the BSE report and to submit an appropriate report to the European Parliament

15. Thanks the Commission, and in particular the Commissioner responsible, Mrs Bonino, and the Director-General responsible of DG XXIV, for its constructive and open cooperation with the Temporary Committee;

16. Welcomes the Commission's proposal to make available to the European Parliament and the general public the conclusions of the reports of the veterinary inspection visits and the recommendations for measures following on therefrom;

1.4 Ensuring transparency when publicising the results of the debates of the advisory scientific committees

17. Insists that the content and results of the deliberations of the scientific committees should be forwarded systematically to the relevant and competent parliamentary committees;

18. Insists, in view of the Commission's influence on the scientific committees identified by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE, on the participation of Members of the European Parliament as observers in the discussions of the scientific committees and the possibility of proposing points of special concern for the agenda;

1.4.5 Guarantee that Parliament's rapporteurs have access to the advisory committees' data and documents

19. Points out that the deficit in terms of the lack of opportunity for Members of the European Parliament to participate in the deliberations of the scientific committees has partly been made up by the Commission's agreement to give access to all documents, including confidential documents, and to make the chairmen of the scientific committees available to Parliament to answer questions and for discussions;

1.5 Other transparency-related recommendations

20. Welcomes the withdrawal of the press literature presented by the Commission"s spokesman"s service on 16 December 1996 and considers that this withdrawal indicates acceptance of the inquiry"s findings;

2. Monitoring the action to combat BSE and protect public health and animal health

2.1 Strengthening of Community monitoring and inspection mechanisms to ensure compliance with Community law and the protection of public and animal health in the internal market

21. Recognizes the need for appropriate staffing levels and funds for the Commission's inspection services; points out, however, that responsibility for implementing Community legal provisions lies with the Member States and that the Commission"s task can only be to supplement them by monitoring their activities and in particular to monitor recognized problem areas;

22. Calls for such monitoring to be undertaken either on the initiative of the Member States or on the basis of an independent Commission decision;

23. Criticizes the fact that the Commission monitored the deficiencies of British port checks in July and September 1996 but then not until June 1997 and recommends that where there are well known shortcomings there should in principle be a timely post-control in order to ensure that recommendations from the FVO are implemented rapidly;

24. Notes that the Commission failed to ensure timely post-control of the implementation of the ban on exports of beef from the United Kingdom, despite known shortcomings, that the European Parliament has already pressed for this, in its resolution no B4-0879/96, prior to the adoption of the committee of inquiry's report and points out in this context that until August 1997 the veterinary authorities in the UK had no legal instrument for carrying out physical checks on consignments of meat unless they involved the police;

25. Is disturbed at the scale of the traffic in meat of British origin and deplores the lack of coordination between the police and customs services of the Member States, and between EUROPOL and UCLAF and the lack of information or the delays with which certain Member States provide information to the relevant Commission services;

26. Suggests that the Committee on Budgetary Control examines scrupulously the question of export refunds for beef within the procedure for the clearance of accounts for 1996 and 1997 in order to identify the scale of the fraud associated with breaches of the ban;

27. Notes that the Commission relied on the statements by the British Government that the legislation was adequate, even though the legal basis for effective checks came into effect only in August 1997;

28. Notes also that the measures and inspection activities of the Member States and the Commission within the internal market options were not adequate to prevent a massive breach of the ban on British beef and that the Member States and the Commission therefore did not succeed in ensuring that the health of the population was protected against potentially infectious meat;

29. Notes that the Commission, in the light of the experiences with the breach of the ban on exports from the United Kingdom in the implementation of Directive 662/89, has still not submitted a proposal to the Council and the European Parliament for improvements to the monitoring system, which links checks in the country of origin with spot checks and physical checks at the frontiers and improved information to the authorities in the country of destination; draws attention, however, to the agreement by the President of the Commission, Mr Santer who has announced the submission of proposals on the monitoring system by February 1998 at the latest;

30. Expects that for the duration of the ban there will be systematic provision for a notification requirement for all meat or animal consignments from the United Kingdom, a notification of the veterinary authorities of the recipient country and a return notification to the authorities of the country of origin; this cross-border check and information system should also be introduced for random checks and spot checks of movements of meat in the internal market;

31. Expects that the information from the inspection reports and the associated recommendations for action will be made available to the European Parliament and the general public and calls on the Council and the Standing Veterinary Committee to take the appropriate decision;

32. Expects the Commission to examine the information about tests for post-mortem identification of cases of BSE in slaughter cattle, which produce results within 24 hours and, if necessary, to introduce these testing systems on a broad basis in order to ensure general checks on animals for slaughter;

33. Notes that the Commission must improve certain aspects of personnel management, in particular by speeding up the administrative procedures for the recruitment of personnel in general and selection procedures in particular with a view to filling vacancies as soon as possible and urges the Commission likewise to encourage internal transfers so as to be able to re-allocate available posts to DG XXIV;

34. Calls on the Commission, for the 1998 financial year, to grant the services and bodies responsible for BSE the maximum in human resources in the framework of the redeployment of vacant posts;

2.2 Setting up of a European Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection

35. Calls on the Commission, on the basis of the IGS report, to submit as soon as possible a proposal for the efficient organization of a veterinary inspection office and in the meantime to ensure that the existing coordination problems are minimized;

2.3 Improved organisation and management of staff in certain units (objectives, communication, monitoring and penalties) in order to minimise the chances of deficient operation

36. Recalls also that, before DG XXIV was established, the consumer protection service contained a food risk analysis unit that never took constructive action over BSE;

37. Welcomes the extension of the remit of Directorate-General for 'Consumer Policy and Consumer Health Protection' (DG XXIV) and emphasises the crucial significance of the functioning of the newly established 'Analysis of health risks' unit as an effective early warning system;

38. Points to the desirability of establishing a formal footing for DG XXIV's role in coordinating such tasks vis-à-vis other related Directorates-General;

39. Expects that, given the evident shortcomings in communication and management ascertained in the past, the Commission will in future ensure more timely legislative, political and legal action the basis of the manual of procedures announced for early 1998 and an improved flow of information;

3. Adoption of all relevant measures for the protection of public health

3.1 Creation of appropriate legal bases

40. Notes with satisfaction that the Commission has responded to the justified demands of the European Parliament for a comprehensive application of the co-decision procedure and has submitted appropriate proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference and expects that the Commission will urge the Member States to put these proposals into effect;

41. Notes that the extension of the co-decision procedure to the areas of animal health and plant protection (amended Article 129 of the EC Treaty) would not have been possible without the determined action of the European Parliament to deal with the BSE crisis;

42. Stresses however that, with regard to public health, the principle of subsidiarity should not lead to inactivity on the part of the European institutions;

43. Regrets that, because of the opposition of the Member States, application of the co-decision procedure to basic legislative decisions in the field of agricultural policy (Article 43 of the EC Treaty) cannot be achieved and expects that the Commission will continue to urge that this demand be implemented;

44. Welcomes the Commission"s commitment to apply Article 100a of the EC Treaty in the area of animal health and food quality and safety and, in the case of beef labelling, its willingness to take action on this approach before the European Court of Justice;

45. Expects the Commission in future consistently to exploit any leeway for interpretation with regard to application of the appropriate legal basis in favour of the greatest possible involvement of the European Parliament;

3.2 Preparation of a framework directive on Community food law following wide-ranging consultations involving the different stages of the food chain and consumers" organisations with a view to improving environmental protection and human health; in the process Community legislation on product liability to be amended by September 1997 at the latest with the aim of including primary product liability and a proposal to be submitted for legislation regarding liability arising from the risk related to the activity

46. Notes the measures already taken by the Commission to prepare a framework directive on European food law and the directive governing responsibility for primary agricultural products adopted by the Commission on 12 October 1997 and points out that the Commission has given an undertaking to submit appropriate proposals which should have Article 100a or 129 (Treaty of Amsterdam) as the legal basis by the middle of 1998;

47. Welcomes the measures already taken by the Commission to prepare a framework directive on European food law and a directive governing responsibility for primary agricultural products and calls on the Commission to submit both proposals to the European Parliament as quickly as possible and expects that in future the Commission will follow a policy in which higher priority is given to the principles of health and consumer protection than to other key principles of the internal market;

3.3 Commission proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for improving the division of powers between EU institutions and Member States in the field of health protection and consumer protection and which define clearly the responsibility for the comprehensive monitoring of the performance of statutory tasks

48. Notes that the Commission submitted appropriate proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference, although only some of them were carried;

49. Notes that some Member States do not have an adequate sense of right and wrong in relation to European jurisdiction and expects the Commission in particular in its activities on health and consumer protection to take account of this situation and implement European law consistently;

3.4 Establishment of a Public Health Protection Unit

50. Notes the Commission"s organisational arrangements to distinguish clearly between legislative work on the one hand and scientific advice and surveillance on the other, and notes also that this may in individual cases involve a greater need for coordination and cooperation between the various Commission services; points out however that the necessary division between administrative and legislative tasks within the Commission should not mask the fact that the real monitoring of the European administration must be the responsibility of the European Parliament;

51. Calls for effective coordination and cooperation between the various Commission services and the Member States to ensure a high level of public health and consumer protection in the definition and implementation of Community policies and activities;

3.5 Action against Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD)

52. Emphasises the need for European coordination and financial support for research activities on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in general and the new variants of CJD in particular, as there are still considerable gaps in knowledge and also because there is very little private and commercial interest in research in this area;

53. Draws attention to the link shown between BSE and nvCJD; considers that it is essential to continue research with a view to demonstrating the mechanism for transmission of this disease from animals to humans;

54. Welcomes the measures taken by the Commission to evaluate the research projects that have been submitted, so that, now that there has been approval of the supplementary budget in October 1997, the projects can start immediately;

55. Notes that the Council's common position on the Commission's proposal on creating a network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the European Community represents a considerable watering down of the Commission text;

56. Regrets deeply that the Council once again did not agree to approve these additional funds at the discussions in the conciliation committee of 23 September 1997;

57. Points to the need to launch further projects designed to open up a more direct avenue to research into nvCJD (human BSE), bearing in mind that the projects submitted to date relate solely to subjects connected with the animal kingdom and the recent findings of British researchers confirm that BSE and nvCJD are closely linked;

3.5.7 Submission of a proposal for compensating nvCJD victims and their relatives and entry of the relevant appropriations in the preliminary draft 1998 budget

58. Criticizes strongly the Commission's hesitant and tardy approach to implementing the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE on the compensation of nvCJD victims;

59. Welcomes the Commission's agreement that, in a spirit of solidarity and in addition to the money made available by the Member States, funds can be provided from the Community budget if the Member States also introduce appropriate initiatives;

60. Criticises the fact that the Commission has failed in the 1998 preliminary draft budget to provide appropriations for compensation for those who have suffered as a result of CJD and their relatives, in response to which the European Parliament has taken the initiative at the first reading of the preliminary draft budget for 1998 to enter a budget heading to that effect;

61. Calls on the Commission, therefore, forthwith and in cooperation with the British government to adopt a no fault compensation system in this special case;

62. Considers support for the associations active in this field to be a first step in the right direction and calls on the British government and the Commission to discuss appropriate measures jointly with these organizations (for example the nvCJD Families Association);

3.6 Closer cooperation of the Community human and animal health services with the World Health Organisation and the International Office of Epizootics, on a basis of scientific rigour

63. Welcomes the Community"s intended accession to the Codex Alimentarius and the International Office of Epizootics (IOE);

64. Supports the endeavours to maximise the transparency of the international bodies;

65. Recommends that the standing committees of the European Parliament accept decisions by international bodies as a basis for their work in future only if the transparency of the decisionmaking process in these bodies is guaranteed with particular attention being paid to the minority votes;

3.7 Matters concerning animal feedingstuffs, and especially meat-and-bone meal

3.7.1 (together with the European Parliament:)

Immediate convening of a scientific conference to look into the problems of using animal proteins in feedingstuffs to serve as the basis for a future Commission proposal to the Council, with a view to recommending its prohibition in future, if this is considered advisable

(Meat-and-bone meal processing standards)

66. Stresses that the recycling of carcases and slaughter waste by the production of meat-andbone meal may be continued only when the separate treatment of the carcases of fallen stock is assured and that meat-and-bone meal can only be released for feed purposes if it has been produced from slaughter waste from animals fit for human consumption; considers, however that the essential precondition for the functioning of carcase recycling is the strict observance of safe processing standards;

67. Stresses that the recycling of carcases and slaughter waste by the production of meat-andbone meal offers the best alternative on economic, environmental and health policy grounds;

68. Stresses that in the processing standards which have been binding since 1 April 1997 (at least 20 minutes at 133Ί C and 3 bar), the concern must be not only to combat BSE but also, in terms of disease prophylaxis, to ensure the comprehensive and effective removal of potential pathogens and that, to this end, binding hygiene rules must be drawn up;

69. Points out that, since the new variant is now known to be transmitted vertically and between species, every precaution must be taken to protect public health;

70. Points out that Member States which cannot or do not want to observe the high standards for carcase processing can only make use of incineration which is an unsuitable option on account both of its environmental impact and of its high cost and the consequent difficulty of ensuring that the procedure is properly followed in all the Member States, thereby averting irregularities;

71. Calls on the Commission to publish a list of the rendering plants operating in the Member States and to update this list every six months;

72. Recalls that at the meat-and-bone meal conference on 1 and 2 July 1997 there was a fundamental dispute between two scientists (Dr Riedinger and Dr Taylor) concerning the safety of certain inactivation processes; considers that, as it was not possible to clarify this important question conclusively, it must now be put to the competent scientific committees for discussion and evaluation, as agreed by the Commissioner, Mrs Bonino, and the outcome of these deliberations reported to Parliament;

(Scientific meat-and-bone meal research)

73. Is concerned that there are still major shortcomings as regards fundamental research on meatand-bone meal; considers that the appropriate research programmes must therefore be extended and stepped up, with appropriate involvement of the competent and interested research institutions;

74. Stresses that in research on meat-and-bone meal an analytical test method to monitor observance of processing standards (ELISA test) and a test procedure to detect meat-andbone meal in concentrates (Ispra test) have now been developed; considers that to check the validity of these methods collaborative tests should be carried out as quickly as possible in the EU;

(International relations)

75. Emphasises that meat-and-bone meal processing standards in the USA are absolutely inadequate; notes that lines of conflict with the EU are already emerging on this matter as the European Parliament's approval of the forthcoming WHO agreements will doubtless be closely linked to the guarantee of a high level of preventive consumer and health protection; considers that the relevant provisions in the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius must therefore be further developed towards a definition of the safety standard for meat-and-bone meal;

76. Expects the Commission to do all in its power to ensure that the strict Community processing standards and the high level of preventive consumer and health protection prevail in the forthcoming WTO agreements, with a consumer's concern clause being proposed in order to guarantee a high level of preventive consumer and health protection;

77. Considers that the precautionary principle of the European Union must be to demand an appropriate level of health protection for the food safety of its citizens; considers that this should be fully recognized by all the Member States;

3.7.2 Submission forthwith of proposals for regulations governing the questions of animal feed and dealing with the following:

3.7.2.1 Confirmation of the general ban on the feeding of meat-and-bone meal to ruminants

78. Notes that no adequate rules have been drawn up on the labelling of meat-and-bone meal, although meat-and-bone meal may not be fed to ruminants and should therefore be labelled accordingly; calls for this ban to appear in clearly legible form on all packaging; notes also that clear indications must be given on compound feedingstuffs as to whether they are intended for ruminants or other animals; considers that appropriate measures must also be adopted to ensure that during manufacture no mixing with concentrates for ruminants occurs;

3.7.2.2 Ban on the feeding of carcasses or offal of sick animals to all animals

79. Calls for fallen stock to be removed completely from processing, also for reasons of social acceptability; notes that this would mean that only slaughter waste and slaughter by-products which are also suitable for human consumption would be processed into meat-and-bone meal; such a measure covers about 15% of material and, on the basis of the system used in Sweden and Switzerland, would lead to the development of a separate carcase rendering line with correspondingly high costs, which should however be met for reasons of preventive consumer protection;

80. Considers it to be absolutely essential to take a decision on this question before the end of the year;

81. Notes that the removal of all sources of potential contamination and its secure storage pending incineration fulfils one of the conditions of the Florence agreement, notwithstanding the necessarily slow process of safe incineration;

82. Points out that in preparation for the rapid establishment of two separate processing lines and in view of the large amounts of meat-and-bone meal stored and awaiting destruction in the United Kingdom the questions associated with the destruction of tallow and meat-and-bone meal for energy production, relating in particular to the risks which that poses, must be clarified by all those concerned as quickly as possible;

83. Recommends that the Commission and the Member States, in particular the UK, concentrate on considering how the remaining meat-and-bone meal can be destroyed as quickly and as efficiently as possible and calls in particular for clarification as to whether the meat-and-bone meal in question cannot also be destroyed in Member States other than the UK, subject of course to maintenance of the highest possible standards of security during transport, and for examination of the matter of how and whether other incineration facilities could be brought on stream;

3.7.2.3 Only the offal of animals which have been released for human consumption may, after it has been adequately sterilized (at 133ΊC, 3 bar for 20 minutes), be fed to non-ruminants such as pigs, poultry and fish

84. Takes the view that, even if material presenting risks and carcases are removed from the food chain and disposed of separately, there must be no lowering of the current processing and utilization standards for meat-and-bone meal (113Ί C, 20 minutes, 3 bar; ban on feeding to ruminants) and calls on the Commission in this connection to ensure the immediate application of current legislation in all Member States;

85. Notes the Commission's very late decision to prohibit the transport of meat-and-bone meal, which has not been produced in accordance with the applicable standards into other Member States or third countries;

86. Calls for immediate proposals by the UK government to remove the backlog of meat-andbone meal presently stored in controlled stores in the UK;

3.7.3 Assurance to the European Parliament that Decision 96/449/EEC is implemented throughout the Community by 1 April 1997 as regards the standards applicable to the processing of meat-and-bone meal and that Member States will not be granted extensions

87. Considers that, in the necessary and welcome institution of proceedings for infringement of the Treaty against certain Member States, the Commission must at the same time, and in order to avoid unnecessary consumer uncertainty, always make public and assess the varying degree of risk for consumers of non-implementation in the Member States;

88. Notes that meat-and-bone meal which does not conform to the legal standards is still being fed to animals; notes, therefore, that some Member States have not fulfilled one of the basic demands made by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE with the aim of safeguarding the health of consumers and that the tardy decision by the Commission on the institution of Treaty infringement proceedings has neither had the necessary effect nor has it as yet been able to solve the problem;

3.8 (together with the Council; by 1 September 1997:)

Measures to ensure uniform respect of maximum guarantees for the elimination of suspect meat-and-bone meal and dangerous or possibly dangerous animal waste, together with a ban on exports of these products to third countries

89. Points out that up to now there has been no scientifically exact and conclusive definition of 'high risk', 'low risk' and 'specified risk material'; moreover, the 12-month age limit for material presenting a risk has been set arbitrarily; there is an urgent need for clarity in terms of materials derived from animals destined for human or animal consumption as in the long term the consumer cannot be told that he can enjoy eating one part of the animal while another part of the same animal constitutes a risk;

90. Notes the information contained in the letter of the British Ministry for Agriculture of 6 November 1997 and asks the British Government and the Commission to continue examining the problems associated with landfill and in so doing to clarify what the risks to safety are and to ensure that meat that is fit neither for human nor for animal consumption is safely disposed of;

91. Calls for the definition of BSE-free places of origin according to IOE standards not only to relate to third countries but also to be applied in the EU, in order to recognise the regionally differing risk potential and take it into account; the origin of animals must be able to be clearly proven so that the eradication of BSE as a gradual process can be verified on a Community level and herds demonstrating this level of clearance can re-enter the market, subject to compliance with the Florence conditions and taking into account the results of EU inspections; this process would at the same time give regions affected by BSE clear guidelines which would enable them in the long term to eradicate the BSE problem and become BSEfree;

92. is aware that such regional differentiation poses not inconsiderable technical difficulties, owing to the internal market, but expects the Commission to submit appropriate proposals in view of the high priority which is now clearly accorded to preventive health and consumer protection and in the interests of the many farmers whose products are of a high quality and who have suffered through no fault of their own during the BSE crisis

93. Takes note of the statement by Commissioner Fischler that Member States may adapt their programmes which are eligible under Structural Funds Objective 5a in order to obtain EU aid towards the necessary technical upgrading;

94. Points out that the decision on risk material of 30 July 1997 contains loopholes and must be rectified with regard to the arrangements for pharmaceutical products; the potential supply problems and legal uncertainties in the case of pharmaceuticals and diagnostic processes resulting from that Commission decision must be remedied as soon as possible;

95. Insists therefore that further thorough scientific analyses of specified risk material (SRM) be conducted, addressing also the 12-month age limit and the significance of maternal transmission;

3.9 Amendment of the legislation on animal nutrition with inclusion in labelling of a mandatory explicit declaration for feedingstuffs by their manufacturers which should facilitate the clear identification of components and of the origin of ingredients and on user instructions

96. Notes that the Commission, despite agreeing to carry out an investigation by the middle of 1998 has not yet declared its unequivocal commitment to quantitative and qualitative declarations for feedingstuffs in the form of clear indications of the components and the origin of the ingredients and calls on the Commission to establish the technical conditions and controls (tests - cf 3.7.1) required for that purpose and to submit an appropriate proposal;

4. Adoption of measures to restore the smooth functioning of the markets

4.1 Efforts to achieve all possible cooperation with the UK authorities responsible for eradication of BSE and BSE-related protection measures with a view to ending the crisis as soon as possible

97. Notes that, as stated by the Commission itself, harmonization of the monitoring plans and improved cooperation within the Union in particular as regards application of Directive 89/608 and Article 16 of Directive 89/622 are vital and calls on the Commission to take relevant action as soon as possible;

98. Calls on the Commission to prohibit completely the deliberate removal of health markings from meat and carcases, with the exception of unavoidable removal during normal cutting and processing operations;

99. Stresses that the principle of subsidiarity presupposes the will to transpose and apply Community legislation in the Member States and notes in this connection that the UK, the Council and the Commission have until very recently failed to display the resolve needed to deal with the BSE crisis quickly and comprehensively;

100. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to submit appropriate proposals before the end of 1997 for improving the UK system of monitoring the beef export ban, which would sensibly combine checks at the place of origin with a greater number of random physical checks at ports and an effective system for passing on information to the authorities of the country of destination

101. Calls on the Commission to institute improvements to the monitoring system by systematically providing, for the duration of the export ban, for compulsory notification of all consignments of meat or animals from the UK, for information to be forwarded to the veterinary authorities of the country of destination and acknowledgements to be sent to the authorities of the country of origin; such a cross-border monitoring and information system should be introduced for the purposes of carrying out random checks on consignments of meat within the internal market and generally for the purpose of import/export bans designed to protect consumers;

102. Welcomes the Commission's suggestions for lines of action as regards the strengthening of veterinary checks in the United Kingdom and in the European Union in general and considers it appropriate that these lines of action should be turned into appropriate measures;

103. Calls on the Commission to draw up a special report by 31 January 1998 on all measures taken to improve the system (legislation etc.), on progress made in the Food and Veterinary Office (on the basis of the IGS report), on BSE inspections, on action to solve cases of fraud and on the matter of a veterinary inspections office;

104. Notes with satisfaction that, with regard to the plants visited in the UK, substantial and effective efforts have been made (documentation, surveillance, cutting up, staining) to prevent meat which is unfit for human consumption from being placed on the market; notes, however, that such measures were not applied in the case of animals slaughtered earlier and trusts that such efforts are not confined to the plants which were visited; consequently calls on the Commission to keep on examining implementation of the measures;

4.2 The following considerations should be seen as fundamental elements in future changes to the rules of the CAP:

4.2.1 Priority for the market interests of the COMs is only a shortsighted policy option for the CAP

4.2.2 Restoration of consumer confidence through appropriate guarantees for public health protection is the only way to ensure a viable agricultural policy which satisfies both consumers and producers

(Cf. also paragraphs 6.2 and 6.6)

105. Stresses that effective consumer protection can be guaranteed only if the Commission does not confine itself to remedial measures and controls, but rigorously applies the precautionary principle so as to include methods of production within its control remit and studies agricultural policy measures to ascertain their effects on consumers;

106. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to submit proposals for a system of inspections on agricultural holdings;

107. Believes that, if the health inspections carried out in the European area are to be effective and hence deserve the total confidence of consumers and citizens, the Member States must undertake to harmonize their criminal law, since this is a sine qua non of the foregoing and an essential political means of ensuring that international fraud in general and fraud of the type involving contaminated meat-and-bone meal in particular are severely punished, not least by the criminal courts;

4.3 Submission without delay of a proposal for a harmonized system of certification for meat in order to restore consumer confidence in this sector

108. Notes that a Commission proposal on the labelling of beef has already been adopted by the Council (Regulation (EC) No 820/97) and welcomes the proceedings instituted by the Commission before the European Court of Justice concerning the appropriate legal basis (Article 100a rather than Article 43 of the Treaty);

109. Requests the Commission, on the basis of Article 100a of the Treaty, to submit a proposal amending Regulation (EC) No 820/97, providing for the labelling of beef to become compulsory throughout the Community during 1998 rather than on 1 January 2000;

110. Deplores the fact that the system of compulsory labelling for beef and veal in Regulation (EC) No 820/97 has not been applied immediately;

111. Recommends that the relevant standing committees attach particular importance to improving those rules;

5. Measures corresponding to the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry

5.1 Submission of legislative proposals with a view to making the authorities which have allowed the disease to appear and spread responsible for the financial costs of BSE

112. Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE;

113. Notes that the Commission has still not introduced measures designed to enforce claims for damages based on the principle of making the responsible party pay and calls on it to review its position in the light of the arguments set out in the opinion of Parliament's Legal Service;

5.2 Adoption of the necessary personnel and disciplinary measures with regard to the incorrect behaviour of Commission officials

114. Notes, in the light of the steps announced by Commissioner Liikkanen on 17 September 1997 when he appeared before the temporary committee, that the Commission has not implemented fully enough the committee of inquiry on BSE's recommendation that it adopt personnel and disciplinary measures;

115. Welcomes in particular the fact that a reorganization has taken place at all levels of the veterinary services, as part of which officials have been transferred;

116. Notes, however, that the Commission refuses to institute disciplinary measures as it allegedly has not established any significant grounds for doing so;

117. Recommends that Parliament's standing committees, in the light of past experience, insist in future that, in addition to Commission experts and Commissioners themselves, Commissioners' chefs de cabinets are also required to provide information and account for their actions;

118. Criticizes the failure to apply Article 88 of the Staff Regulations (suspension from duty);

119. Calls on the Commission to initiate disciplinary inquiries without delay, in all relevant cases, on the basis of the instances of personal misconduct by individual Commission officials identified in the committee of inquiry on BSE's report and points out in this connection that the disciplinary provisions contained in the Staff Regulations provide for disciplinary measures ranging from a written warning or reprimand to removal from post;

120. Recommends, in view of this, that Parliament call on the Commission to arrange without delay, on the basis of the committee of inquiry on BSE's findings and of files which have not yet been examined, an internal inspection by the Inspections générales des Services concerning the handling of the BSE crisis by the responsible Commission departments;

121. Calls on the Commission, in view of the criticized shortcomings of the Staff Regulations as they stand, to submit a new, more appropriate text amending the current disciplinary provisions and insists on the agreement of the President of the Commission, Mr Santer, that such an amendment of the Staff Regulations will be made before 1999;

122. Calls on the Commission to analyse its internal decision-making processes with a view to ensuring effective checks at each stage in both administrative and policy terms;

5.3 If the Commission denies responsibility, as was suggested by the Commission President on 15 January 1997 when speaking before the committee of inquiry, immediate bringing of administrative proceedings against the United Kingdom for repayment of all sums allocated in previous years for the purposes of eradicating BSE

123. Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE;

124. Calls on the Commission, in the context of the clearance of accounts, to give priority to ascertaining whether BSE-related expenditure by the UK is in accordance with Community rules, and, if it is not, to consistently refuse funding;

125. Points out that it falls to Parliament, pursuant to Article 206 of the Treaty, to give discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget and that Parliament will return to this matter on that occasion;

126. Takes the view that the Commission already has ample information to warrant immediate verification of matters pertaining to the clearance of accounts in relation to BSE-related measures in the UK and calls for a report on this subject to be submitted without delay to Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control;

5.4 Application of the procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty to those Member States which have not fulfilled their obligations under the Treaty

127. Welcomes the fact that the Commission has instituted Treaty infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty against a number of Member States for failing to implement certain key aspects of Community legislation on BSE; notes, however, that the length of Treaty infringement procedures takes no account of immediate risks to people and the environment;

128. Encourages the Commission to apply for temporary injunctions from the European Court of Justice more frequently than in the past, to make greater use of the existing protective measures in the agricultural market regulations and to report back to the European Parliament and to seek an amendment of the Treaty in order to give a stronger institutional basis to such rights of intervention;

129. Calls on the Commission always to conduct follow-up inspections, prior to infringement proceedings, in order to ascertain whether shortcomings identified and criticized during an earlier inspection have in fact been remedied;

130. Is of the opinion that the cost of such follow-up inspections must, in principle, be borne in full by the Member State concerned;

5.5 (After being called upon to do so by the European Parliament:)

Institution of proceedings against the UK government in the European Court of Justice on the basis of Article 3(2) of the joint decision of Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 and Article 169 of the Treaty on account of the failure of Mr Hogg, the UK Minister of Agriculture, to appear before the committee

131. Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE;

132. Asks Parliament to request the Council to make a binding declaration to the effect that Article 3(2) of the interinstitutional decision of 19 April 1995 will in future be interpreted by all Members of the Council in such a way that a Member State's government is required to send one of its members to appear before a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament at that committee's request;

133. Calls on the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to institute appropriate proceedings in the European Court of Justice with the aim of guaranteeing in full Parliament's right of inquiry, should the Council consider itself unable to make such a binding declaration;

134. Welcomes the clarification given by Commission President Santer that the Commission will support the European Parliament's position in the 1999 renegotiation of the interinstitutional agreement, making it compulsory for members of the government of a Member State to appear before European Parliament committees of inquiry (cf. letter from Commission President Santer to the President of the European Parliament, Mr Gil-Robles, of 5 November 1997; S(97)/160);

6. Other recommendations

6.1 Proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for an amendment of the Treaty enabling a motion of censure to be tabled against individual members of the Commission (Article 144, to be carried by the same majority as is required in the case of a motion of censure against the Commission as a whole)

135. Notes that the Commission has not yet implemented the above recommendation by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE and demands that models be devised to ensure that cases of individual misconduct are punished, without such action conflicting with the notion of the Commission's collegiate structure constituting the foundation on which it operates;

136. Criticizes the Commission's opposition to introducing a motion of censure on individual Members of the Commission, but maintains this political demand as a way of ensuring that the Commission is fully accountable to Parliament;

6.2 Submission of proposals by the Commissioner for Agriculture for the re-structuring of the current CAP, to cover:

137. Notes that detailed analysis of the proposals for reforming agriculture set out in Agenda 2000 in order to ascertain their compatibility with the committee of inquiry on BSE's demands would go far beyond the temporary committee's remit, especially since, as the timetable stands, the specific amendments to the legislation will not be available until after the temporary committee completes its work;

138. Recommends therefore that the standing committee responsible for agriculture also ascertain whether the agricultural reforms are consistent with the aims laid down by the committee of inquiry on BSE;

139. Considers, however, that a fundamental assessment should be made, on the basis of the key figures for agricultural policy set out in Agenda 2000, with regard to the committee of inquiry's demands;

6.2.1 Promotion of extensive farming practices

140. Points out that the common agricultural policy is the responsibility of the Community and the financial resources provided by consumers and taxpayers to impose Community preference should be distributed to agricultural producers in accordance with stringent criteria designed to maintain the quality of the food chain, animal health and welfare, and the environment and calls therefore for due account to be taken, in accompanying measures, of environmental and social standards and structural differences;

141. Welcomes in principle the measures which enable individual farmers to move towards less intensive production, boost production of regional products or switch to other forms of production; considers there to be a danger, however, that the proposed price cuts could frustrate the aim of moving towards less intensive production, at least in the case of certain types of farming;

142. Believes that a strict quality control system should be established whereby the Community would endorse a food chain and provide complete guarantees to consumers;

6.2.2 Increase the amount of land under cultivation

6.2.3 Ban on all practices which could be harmful for animal health and human health

143. Welcomes the fact that, as a result of the experience with BSE, the use of Avoparcin as a growth promoter was banned as a precaution, on 1 April 1997; calls for the precautionary principle to be applied also to other antibiotics and growth promoters, since, in the agricultural production of foodstuffs, unlike in medicine, no risks or side-effects may be tolerated;

144. Calls for the negotiations in the WTO not to give in to the attempt to import meat treated with hormones from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand;

145. Is critical of the slow progress made in reviewing feedingstuffs additives such as Carbadox, Olaquinox, Ronidazole and Dimetridazole, pursuant to Directive 70/524 (EEC), despite the fact that the Commission report on this subject in 1991 recommended that authorization of these substances be reviewed owing to their genotoxic and carcinogenic properties; calls on the Commission to conclude the work of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs as soon as possible with the aim of banning these substances unless it is clearly established by scientific means that they are safe; points out also that Ronidazole and Dimetridazole have been banned as veterinary medicinal products since 1994 and 1995 respectively and that authorization of Carbadox and Olaquinox as feedingstuffs additives has allowed the WTO Panel to argue, in relation to the ban on the use of hormones, that the EU health protection standards were inconsistent;

146. Welcomes the joint stance of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament on banning imports of meat treated with hormones despite the external pressures to which they are subject and recalls the European Parliament's position on genetically modified organisms;

6.3 Strict vigilance concerning the reporting of all BSE cases throughout the European Union as there is reason to believe that there have been instances of under reporting

147. Notes that it has not been possible to dispel beyond all doubt in all Member States suspicions that large number of BSE cases have gone unreported thus justifying further monitoring of the cases presented in all Member States and making it necessary to encourage active monitoring on the basis of the existing BSE notification requirement;

148. Calls on the Commission, in view of the importance of a properly functioning Communitywide reporting system, to submit without delay the proposal it announced for a Council regulation on the monitoring of BSE, which, as it is, will come at least five years too late;

6.4 Review of the Florence decision of 11 June 1996 (96/362) to lift the import ban on gelatin derived from cattle

149. Welcomes the de facto suspension of the decision to lift the ban on imports of gelatin made from bovine animal products although no rule based on any of the seriously flawed scientific debates have been repealed;

150. Welcomes the Commission's decision in principle to exclude materials that present a risk from the food chain and to allow them to be used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products only where absolutely essential to prevent shortages of medicines; recalls in this connection the need to amend Decision 97/534 so as firstly to guarantee the supply of safe raw materials and secondly to enable the materials in question to continue to be used in diagnostic equipment;

6.5 Cooperation with the Member States so that the public is kept systematically and fully informed about all aspects of nutrition that are important for public health

151. Endorses the Commission's line of relying more on regulations rather than directives for food legislation in future, so as to ensure a uniformly high level of consumer information and prevent distortions of competition;

6.6 Changes to the common agricultural policy so as to create a framework which makes possible and reinforces the responsibility of agricultural holdings for the production of healthy food using sustainable farming methods

152. Notes that Parliament's call for social and environmental criteria to be applied to the granting of aid is echoed in the form of a statement of intent in Agenda 2000; but that it is now necessary to give specific shape to and incorporate them in these criteria proposals for legislation;

153. Calls on the Commission to be consistent in applying the principle of adapting measures to local conditions in the case of proposals for individual production sectors, as this is an important prerequisite for the production of healthy food and for sustainable farming; welcomes in this connection the positive response of the Commission in acknowledging the need for regional and/or local factors to be taken into account when determining optimum specific intensity (inputs/output balance);

154. Calls on the Commission, as part of the forthcoming reform of the CAP, to lay down in Community law with the aim of protecting health a binding framework for sustainable farming and in particular methods of keeping and feeding animals that are appropriate to the species concerned and to make the granting of aid to individual holdings, the payment of premiums and direct payments dependent on fulfilment of such conditions;

155. Sees in this context a need to apply Regulation 2078/92 more flexibly and, where necessary, to increase co-financing by the EU correspondingly, although 100% financing by the EU must be excluded on principle;

156. Urges that, in the context of Agenda 2000, compensatory payments be linked to a code of good agricultural practice with a view to ensuring sustainable farming methods and compliance with the nitrates directive, subject to WTO competition rules;

157. Calls on the Commission in addition to draw up proposals on sustainable farm practices which must go beyond regular soil sampling, fertilizer audits and the fleshing-out of the nitrates directives;***

(1) OJ C85, 17 March 1997, p.61.

I. Introduction

1. The mandate of the Temporary Committee

With the decision setting up a temporary committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE adopted by the European Parliament on 23 April 1997, the committee received the mandate 'without prejudice to the powers and responsibilities of the standing parliamentary committees as regards legislative issues ... to monitor the action taken by the European Commission on the recommendations made by the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE'

The temporary committee must submit a report to the Conference of Presidents before the first partsession in November 1997. This is the text of the report.

It is not the task the Temporary Committee to declare itself for or against the introduction of a motion of censure against the European Commission. Pursuant to its mandate, the Temporary Committee is merely evaluating the implementation of the recommendations made by the committee of inquiry into BSE. Moreover, the European Parliament"s right to table a motion of censure is based solely on Article 144 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Rule 34 of the European Parliament"s Rules of Procedure. Such a motion of censure can be tabled at any time by one tenth of the members of the European Parliament and does not depend on the submission of a report by a parliamentary committee.

2. The treatment of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE

Firstly, the rapporteur prepared a summary of the recommendations contained in the report of the committee of inquiry into BSE (cf. working document No 1 of 15 May 1997, PE 221.135). There is thus now a complete and clearly structured list of recommendations, making it possible to 'tick off' the monitoring tasks point by point.

This list is based on the broad structure of the committee of inquiry"s report and hence covers the following areas:

1. Transparency of the action to combat BSE;

2. Monitoring the action to combat BSE and protect public health and animal health

3. Adoption of all relevant measures for the protection of public health;

4. Adoption of measures to restore the smooth functioning of the markets;

5. Measures corresponding to the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry;

6. Other recommendations.

The detailed structure of the list of recommendations differs from the listing in the BSE report as each point usually relates to only one recommendation while the various sections in the BSE report sometimes contain more than one recommendation and sometimes the same recommendation is repeated, for good reasons, in several places.

This list of recommendations also determines the structure of this report. Both in Part A 'Conclusions and recommendations' and in the explanatory statement the relevant recommendations contained in the committee of inquiry"s report are first presented in bold type, followed by the conclusions and explanatory remarks.

When the committee started its work, the European Commission was requested to report back to the Temporary Committee at regular intervals on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the committee of inquiry into BSE. These progress reports (initially called 'Report on the state of activities' by the Commission) also follow the structure of the list of recommendations and were submitted on 6 June, 9 July, 8 September and 8 October. The fourth progress report ('Final Consolidated Report') of 8 October 1997 provides an overview once again of all the measures taken to date and therefore forms part of this report as a separately published Annex.

The fourth progress report will provide a clear picture of how many of the recommendations the Commission has already implemented and where practical action is still needed. The rapporteur is therefore not going to comment separately and in detail on each individual point. This applies in particular to the large number of points which have been implemented satisfactorily.

As a rule the recommendations concerned are thus reproduced only down to the first sub-level (e.g.: 3.4). Any further levels, are generally subsumed under the corresponding sub-point (e.g.: the conclusions and explanatory statement concerning 3.4.1 to 3.4.6 come under 3.4). Only where necessary, i.e. where a particular sub-level is of special importance is the text reproduced verbatim (e.g.: 3.5.7).

The focus of the evaluation and the subject of the associated conclusions and recommendations are therefore primarily those recommendations that are of particular political relevance – for example, where opinions differ and where further action is considered necessary.

3. The organization of the committee's work

The Temporary Committee considered the follow up by the European Commission of the recommendations made by the committee of inquiry into BSE on the basis of the Commission"s progress reports submitted in the months of May to November 1997 in 12 meetings involving with a total of 29 days.

From the rapporteur"s viewpoint, the instrument of the monthly updated Commission progress report, used by the European Parliament for the first time, proved to be a valuable tool. The clear structure made it possible to deal with the individual topics precisely and on a continuous basis. In this connection the Commission"s positions were continuously developed and modified on the basis of the discussions in the committee.

For the Commission, responsibility for coordination and management lay with the Commissioner, Mrs Bonino, who made herself available for discussions with the committee on many occasions. Mr Reichenbach, Director General of Mrs Bonino"s Directorate General XXIV also attended all committee meetings and was its main contact in its day-to-day work. When required - particularly in presenting the progress reports - the Directors General of the other DGs concerned (I, III, V, VI and VII) or their representatives also attended the meetings. The Committee also had discussions with the representatives of the Commission"s Legal Service, the Commission's Inspectorate General (Inspections générales des Services), the EU"s anti-fraud unit (UCLAF) and the Chairman of the Multidisciplinary Committee, Professor Kemper.

The President of the Commission, Mr Santer, held a final exchange of views with the committee in October 1997. On relevant individual points, the Committee also invited Commissioners Oreja, Fischler and Liikanen. There was also an exchange of views with the British Minister for Agriculture, Dr Cunningham and, in his capacity as acting President of the Council of Agricultural Ministers, the Luxembourg Minister for Agriculture, Mr Boden.

Contacts within the European Parliament included the MEPs Mr Brinkhorst and Mr Tillich (Committee on Budgets) on the 'Financial impact of the BSE crisis', Mr Valverde Lopez (Environment) and Mr Tappin (Budget) on the 'European Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection' and Mr Linkohr (Research) on BSE- and CJD-related research. The legal implications of implementing the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE were discussed with representatives of Parliament"s Legal Service.

In addition to its meetings, the Committee was also heavily involved in organising the preparation of the International Scientific Conference on Meat-and-Bone Meal held on 1/2 July 1997 in Brussels. To this end it established a four-person working group, comprising the vice-chairman Mr S. Jové Peres, the coordinators Mr F.-W. Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mr P. Whitehead, and the rapporteur.

This group had several meetings with the Commission officials from DG XXIV (Mr Reichenbach and Mr Rateau) and DG VI (Mr Heine) responsible for the organization of the Conference, and despite some pressure of time discussions took place in an open and constructive atmosphere and could be completed rapidly. The results of the meat-and-bone meal conference were summarised by the rapporteur in a working document (Working Document No 2 of 7 July 1997, PE 221.144), but are also reproduced at the appropriate points (in particular under 3.7 and 3.8) in this report.

At the invitation of the British Minister for Agriculture, Dr Cunningham, a committee delegation made an on-the-spot visit from 28 to 30 September 1997 to learn about the implementation of BSErelated measures in the United Kingdom and the monitoring of them by the Commission. The members of the delegation were the chair, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, the vice-chairman, Mr Santini, the rapporteur, Mr Böge and the members Mr Corrie, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, Mr Kofoed and Mr Whitehead. Mr Reichenbach, Director-General of DG XXIV accompanied the delegation as a guest.

During its visit to the United Kingdom committee members had the opportunity to obtain comprehensive and practical information about the existing BSE-related problems. On-the-spot visits were in particular to the port of Dover (export checks), a dairy farm, a slaughterhouse (implementation of the selective cull programme), a meat-and-bone meal plant, a meat-and-bone meal store and an incineration plant for meat-and-bone meal. In addition there were opportunities for talks with the Minister for Agriculture, Dr Cunningham, and the Churchill family, representing the British victims of nvCJD.

The visit took place in an open and constructive atmosphere. Representatives of the British Ministry of Agriculture were always available to answer additional questions and to take part in expert discussions. Those members who had already been part of the delegation from the Committee of Inquiry into BSE which visited the United Kingdom in December 1996 commented favourably on the improvements in atmosphere and content since this visit. The results of the delegation's visit and any shortcomings which remain appear in the appropriate points (see in particular points 3.5.7, 3.7.2.2 and 4.1).

II. Concerning the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE

(Note: The recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE were summarised by the rapporteur (cf. Working Document No 1 of 15 May 1997, PE 221.135), approved by the Temporary Committee in this form, and forwarded to the Commission as a structure for its progress reports. These recommendations are indicated in the text below in bold type. They are followed by the relevant explanations in normal type.

1. Transparency of the action to combat BSE

1.1 Comprehensive information policy to guarantee the widest possible dissemination of relevant research data and findings

As regards enhancing the transparency of the action to combat BSE, the committee welcomes the fact that the Commission has implemented an extensive range of measures, both as regards the inspection reports and the work of the scientific committees. This new openness contrasts favourably with the disinformation activities of individual Commission officials uncovered by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE. By placing the information on the Internet and taking other measures, in particular access to documents and the presentation of minority opinions, interested specialists would now seem to have open access. In this connection, the organisation of the meat-and-bone meal conference on 1 and 2 July 1997 was a positive step and provided an excellent forum for a public scientific and political discussion.

1.2 Reform of the rules governing the work of the Advisory Scientific Committees

There have been a number of changes geared towards transparency in the structure and working methods of the Advisory Scientific Committees, which the rapporteur basically welcomes. A European Parliament observer followed the procedure for selecting the members of the Scientific Steering Committee. The fact that the committee members are remunerated for their work should help to ensure the cooperation of independent scientists. Shortcomings still remain in the changes in the administrative procedure for reimbursing expenses. Although improvements have been discussed the point is now to adopt and implement them swiftly.

1.3 Setting up of a joint Commission and European Parliament body with a fixed term of office to monitor the implementation of the measures set out in the BSE report and to submit an appropriate report to the European Parliament

The rapporteur considers that this point has been covered by the European Parliament's decision to set up a temporary committee to follow up the recommendations on BSE and the submission of the four progress reports by the European Commission, with the participation of all the DirectoratesGeneral concerned. Cooperation between the Committee and the Commission has basically been open, constructive and objective. This is mainly due to the commitment of the Commissioner responsible, Mrs Bonino and the Director-General of DG XXIV. Therefore both are to be thanked

– also because of and indeed in view of the differences in opinions that still persist.

1.4 Ensuring transparency when publicising the results of the debates of the advisory scientific committees

Here, as in the case of point 1.1, the general picture is on the whole positive. This applies in particular to the Commission"s commitment to publish the agendas, minutes and opinions of the scientific committees.

However, there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the majority on the committee and the Commission as regards the participation of members of the European Parliament in the deliberations of the scientific committees. The President of the Commission, Mr Santer, turned down this proposal in his letter to the chairman of the committee of 13 August 1997, arguing that a clear distinction had to be made between the powers of the European Parliament and the Commission and that it was necessary to guarantee the independence of the work of the scientific committees. Moreover, the President of the European Parliament, Mr Gil-Robles, points out in his letter to committee chairmen of 25 July 1997 that at a meeting with Mr Santer, Mrs Green and Mr Martens of 8 July 1997 all present had agreed that it was not appropriate for the Members of the European Parliament to participate in these meetings.

In this connection it should be remembered, however, that the Commission's influence on the scientific committees identified by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE could not have taken place if members of the European Parliament had been present. Participation by Members of Parliament thus does not mean compromising the independence of the working of the scientific committees but is, rather, the best guarantee that this independence will be fully maintained in future.

1.5 Other transparency-related recommendations

On 16 December 1996 the Commission spokesman"s service presented misleading press literature on BSE which played down the problem, which was refuted by the facts established by the committee of inquiry into BSE. After the European Parliament had strongly criticized this press release, the Commission withdrew it from the Internet. The rapporteur welcomes the withdrawal of this release and considers that it indicates acceptance of the committee of inquiry"s findings.

2. Monitoring the action to combat BSE and protect public health and animal health

2.1 Strengthening of Community monitoring and inspection mechanisms to ensure compliance with Community law and the protection of public and animal health in the internal market

In it communication 'Consumer health and food safety' (COM(97) 183) the Commission presented a sound work programme for structural improvements in the field of food, veterinary and phytosanitary monitoring and inspections.

An effective inspection service of course presupposes appropriate staffing levels and funds. The European Parliament"s Committee on Budgets, in the context of discussions on the supplementary and amending budget submitted by the Commission, worked out a sensible compromise (creation of an initial 35 posts for 1997). It is incomprehensible why the Commission cannot compensate for the delays arising from the need for a second reading by filling the 35 vacancies through internal movements of staff . It could make use of some 500 posts which are currently vacant. The fact that an arrangement that involves several directorates general is clearly not possible reflects on the overall state of the Commission. The refusal to table a motion of censure against individual commissioners (cf. 6.1) is justified by the Commission mainly on the grounds of the institution"s collegiate nature. However, the Commission"s behaviour with regard to the management of vacant posts suggests that it is not so much a college as a group of individual commissioners, who are primarily concerned with their own portfolios and not with the general interest of the Commission.

In this connection it must be pointed out once again that the Member States are responsible for implementing Community legislation. The Member States are therefore primarily responsible for swift transposition of the law and its effective administration. The Commission can never replace the national monitoring systems, but only supplement them by monitoring their activities. However, on the basis of risk analysis, the Commission must concentrate particularly on monitoring existing and recognised problem areas.

As regards the situation in the United Kingdom, in his notes of 19 and 21 June 1996 Mr Legras, Director General, pointed out that the British system for eliminating BSE was highly complex and that more stringent controls were therefore necessary. In July 1996 there was then an inspection of the British external controls when serious shortcomings were ascertained. This was followed by four further checks in the United Kingdom, but they related to other areas (such as the over thirty months scheme). Despite the known shortcomings the British external controls were not inspected again until June 1997, when yet again serious weaknesses were identified. These management errors on the Commission"s part resulted in six months being lost. These experiences once again demonstrate how important it is to provide for automatic follow-up inspections (cf. also point 5.4).

However, this procedure also demonstrates once again the high standard of the Commission"s on-thespot inspections, where highly qualified inspectors repeatedly detect weaknesses which normally should long since have been identified by the national authorities. The detection of shortcomings, as recently in Schleswig Holstein, is proof yet again of the failure of national monitoring systems and also demonstrate the quality of the EU inspectors" work.

The experiences with the application of Directive 662/89 in connection with the breach of the ban on exports from the United Kingdom were not very positive as checks were insufficient and ineffective. In order to improve this situation permanently in future the Commission should submit to the Council and the European Parliament a proposal to improve the monitoring system. This proposal should link checks in the country of origin with, if needed or in special situations, spot checks and physical checks at the frontiers and improved information to the authorities of the country of destination.

The Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice stated in his opinion at the end of September 1997 that the ban on exports of beef from the United Kingdom was legal. Should the Court of Justice follow this view such a ruling would further strengthen the role of the Commission. It is to be welcomed that the Court of Justice in its preliminary ruling of 12 July 1996 had already given consumer protection precedence over economic interests. Further confirmation of this position would not only support the similar position of the European Parliament but would also give the Commission the possibility to implement more easily preventive health and consumer protection measures in respect of the Member States and, for example, take action in a more consistent manner in future on questions of withdrawal of licences in the case of severe infringements of Community law.

There is justifiable incomprehension about the time it takes to recruit external personnel for the European civil service - it is not unusual for vacancies to remain empty for a year or longer. Here the Commission is requested, as a matter of urgency, to speed up substantially its own administrative procedures, particularly in connection with the recruitment of specialist staff for the inspection service.

2.2 Setting up of a European Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection

The Commission"s proposal for a Council Regulation on the creation of a European agency for veterinary and phytosanitary inspection is under discussion in Parliament"s standing committees. The Committee on the Environment (rapporteur: Mr Valverde Lopez) is the committee responsible in this consultation procedure and the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries have been asked for their opinions. In its discussions the Temporary Committee has paid close attention to this subject and has heard the rapporteur Mr Valverde Lopez and the draftsman of the Committee on Budget's opinion Mr Tappin.

In the meantime the Commission has withdrawn its initial proposal and in its new proposal it intends to replace the original legal basis (Article 43 of the EC Treaty) by the co-decision procedure under Article 100a and also to take up other proposals made by the European Parliament. It has also announced that it will submit the new proposal to the European Parliament on the basis of a prior analysis of the situation of the inspection services in the Member States.

The decision to transform the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Office (new name 'EC Office for Product Quality Inspection and Audit') into a European agency with its seat in Ireland was taken on 29 October 1993 jointly by the Member State governments. However, the relocation of the office to Ireland makes the necessary coordination with other Commission services considerably more difficult and in no way enhances the effectiveness of this important agency. Hence Parliament"s standing committees are called on to ensure, in the framework of their involvement, that in the practical implementation of the Council Decision of 29 October 1993 the inevitable coordination problems are kept to a minimum.

2.3 Improved organisation and management of staff in certain units (objectives, communication, monitoring and penalties) in order to minimise the chances of deficient operation.

At its meeting of 12 February 1997 the Commission approved a reorganisation of the Commission services responsible for health protection, whereby in particular the remit of the Directorate General for Consumer Policy and Consumer Health Protection was considerably widened (DG XXIV). The work of the newly established 'Analysis of health risks' unit, which is directly answerable to the Director-General, will be crucial for the effectiveness of this new organisational structure. It is only to be hoped that with this unit the Commission will be able to establish a workable early warning system, so as to prevent the development of situations like the BSE crisis at a very early stage.

The committee of inquiry into BSE found serious organisational shortcomings in the Commission"s work. For example, in the past inspection reports disappeared en route through the hierarchy. The Commission is expected to ensure an improved flow of information and more timely legislative, political and legal action in future on the basis of the announced manual of procedures, bearing in mind the obvious communication and management shortcomings of the past.

3. Adoption of all relevant measures for the protection of public health

3.1 Creation of appropriate legal bases

The Commission has responded to the justified demands of the European Parliament for comprehensive application of the co-decision procedure and submitted appropriate proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference. This is very much to be welcomed, although regrettably the application of co-decision to basic legislative decisions in the field of agricultural policy (Article 43 of the EC Treaty) has proved unworkable because of the resistance of the Member States. On the other hand it must be pointed out that the extension of the co-decision procedure to the areas of animal health and plant protection (amended Article 129 of the EC Treaty) would not have been possible without the determined action of the European Parliament to deal with the BSE crisis. The work of the Commissioner responsible for negotiations at the Intergovernmental Conference, Mr Oreja who, despite a very tight schedule, gave every assistance to the Temporary Committee up to the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Conference is therefore acknowledged and he is thanked.

On 11 February 1997 President Santer, in a speech to the European Parliament, announced the Commission"s commitment to apply Article 100a of the EC Treaty in all areas of animal health and food quality and safety. The Commission is clearly also willing to take action on this approach before the European Court of Justice. On 22 July 1997 it instituted proceedings against the Council on the subject of beef labelling, since the Council had adopted the corresponding regulation on the basis of Article 43 of the EC Treaty. The rapporteur cordially welcomes this new political approach by the Commission, but also expects that the Commission will in future consistently exploit any leeway for interpretation with regard to the application of the appropriate legal basis in favour of the greatest possible involvement of the European Parliament.

3.2 Preparation of a framework directive on Community food law following wide-ranging consultations involving the different stages of the food chain and consumers' organisations with a view to improving environmental protection and human health; in the process Community legislation on product liability to be amended by September 1997 at the latest with the aim of including primary product liability and a proposal to be submitted for legislation regarding liability arising from the risk related to the activity

The Commission has undertaken various important activities in preparation for a framework directive on European food law (publication of a Green Paper on the general principles of food law; organisation of an interdisciplinary conference on this subject in autumn 1997). The Commission is about to discuss a proposal for a Directive governing liability for primary agricultural products. The rapporteur calls on the Commission, on conclusion of this preparatory work, formally to submit both proposals to the European Parliament as quickly as possible.

3.3 Commission proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for improving the division of powers between EU institutions and Member States in the field of health protection and consumer protection and which define clearly the responsibility for the comprehensive monitoring of the performance of statutory tasks

The Commission submitted a series of proposals, in particular concerning the amendment of Article 129 of the EC Treaty (health) and Article 129a of the EC Treaty (consumer protection) to the Intergovernmental Conference, but in fact only some of them were carried. The most important political result here is the extension of the co-decision procedure to animal health and plant protection (amended Article 129 of the EC Treaty).

3.4 Establishment of a Public Health Protection Unit

In the field of public health the Commission has made fundamental organisational changes. DG XXIV has been given particular responsibility for consumer health protection with regard to scientific advice, risk assessment and inspections. At the same time DG V"s health responsibilities remain unaffected. At the same time a clear distinction has been made between legislative work on the one hand and scientific advice and surveillance on the other. In individual cases this may of course involve a greater need for coordination and cooperation between the individual Commission services, but this should be achievable by making the necessary improvements to the organizational procedures.

3.5 Action against Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD)

Research work into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in general and the new variant of CJD in particular will have to be intensified and extended in the light of the considerable gaps in knowledge that still exist. There is also an urgent need for coordination and funding at European level, since there is very little private or commercial interest in this area, given the low incidence of CJD (one per million of the population).

The measures taken to date by the Commission to evaluate the research projects that have been submitted are to be welcomed. It should thus be possible to start the projects within a month of approval of the supplementary budget.

3.5.7 Submission of a proposal for compensating nvCJD victims and their relatives and entry of the relevant appropriations in the preliminary draft 1998 budget

In its first progress report of 6 June 1997 the Commission undertook to examine opportunities to support Member States in the compensation of CJD victims, in a spirit of solidarity. But the Committee is not clear as to the progress and results of this examination. It is established, therefore, that the Commission has not implemented this recommendation by the committee of inquiry into BSE.

In this connection the rapporteur has submitted his own draft amendment to the draft budget for 1998, proposing a budget line B3-4308 'expenditure to compensate persons who have been damaged by nvCJD in the EU'. The Commission is requested to submit a proposal for the compensation of CJD victims forthwith, without absolving the United Kingdom of its primary responsibility in this connection.

During the delegation's visit to the United Kingdom members of the Temporary Committee met at their own request Mr and Mrs Churchill as representatives of the British victims of nvCJD. The Churchills described very effectively the situation of the victims of nvCJD and the inadequacies of the British health system which as yet does not appear to have been dealing with this illness in an appropriate manner. The discussion with the Churchills took place against the background of the new scientific findings published in Nature, from which it can be assumed that nvCJD is in practice identical with BSE. It is highly probable that the term 'Human BSE' will be used instead of nvCJD.

The victims of Human BSE/nvCJD have three main policy demands:

1. A public judicial inquiry into BSE;

2. Creation of a care programme for those suffering from Human BSE;

3. Establishment of a compensation fund based on a no fault compensation scheme.

The rapporteur is very sympathetic to these demands. While the first two demands are directed to the competent offices in the United Kingdom the third demand calls for direct and immediate action on the part of the Commission.

Addendum following presentation of the Fourth Progress Report

The European Parliament's Committee on Budgets has in the meantime approved the creation of a budget heading proposed by the rapporteur to compensate nvCJD sufferers. Parallel to this, there was also a positive outcome to the Commission's deliberations on the matter.

The Commission's agreement that additional funds may be raised from the Community budget, in a spirit of solidarity, to add to those already provided by the Member States, if the Member States also take initiatives to that effect, is therefore to be welcomed.

Financial support for the organizations active in this area (such as the nvCLD Families Association) is certainly an initial step in the right direction. The British Government and the Commission should now, therefore, discuss appropriate measures with the relevant organizations as soon as possible.

It should not be forgotten, however, that the greatest financial need lies with the families themselves who have to care for their dying relatives through a long period of suffering faced with a health service which has not yet developed adequate facilities to deal with this disease. It is above all incumbent on the United Kingdom to alleviate the suffering of the families concerned as far as at all possible and to enable those afflicted with nvCJD to die with dignity.

3.6 Closer cooperation of the Community human and animal health services with the World Health Organisation and the International Office of Epizootics, on a basis of scientific rigour

The structures and working methods of the international bodies (WHO; Codex Alimentarius; IOE), as well as the role of the Commission were clearly detailed for the first time in the second progress report, and discussed at length in the Temporary Committee. In particular, it became clear that for the Commission to have only observer status cannot do justice to EU interests in an optimum manner. The Community"s intention to become a full member is thus to be welcomed. The objections of individual members of the Council to Commission membership are therefore unjustified and should be abandoned promptly.

The case of BSE also shows that shortcomings in the transparency of working methods exists not only in the Commission but also at international level. Thus, a joint meeting of the World Health Organisation and the International Office for Epizootics on 1 and 2 September 1994 was quite controversial and it was not possible to reach agreement. However, the IOE record of the meeting gives a misleading account of the content and course of this meeting, in that there is no reference at all to the lack of consensus. This example demonstrates that greater efforts must be made to maximise transparency in these international bodies as well. It is to be welcomed that the Commission, as opposed to its initial statement to the committee of inquiry, has since recognised the shortcomings of the record-keeping at that meeting (second progress report).

The standing committees of the European Parliament are recommended to pay particular attention to the decisions of the international bodies. In future they should only accept their decisions as a basis for their own work provided that the transparency of the decision making process in these bodies is guaranteed.

3.7 Matters concerning animal feedingstuffs, and especially meat-and-bone meal

3.7.1 (together with the European Parliament:)

Immediate convening of a scientific conference to look into the problems of using animal proteins in animal feedingstuffs to serve as the basis for a future Commission proposal to the Council, with a view to recommending its prohibition in future, if this is considered advisable

On 1-2 July 1997 the international scientific conference on meat-and-bone meal advocated by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE took place in Brussels with about 300 delegates from the scientific and consumer protection sectors, national authorities and European political circles. The subject was dealt with under four main topics covering scientific, legislative, ecological and economic and consumer policy aspects.

The European Parliament"s role as the co-organiser was emphasized by the opening speech by the committee chair, Mrs Roth-Behrendt, the closing speech by the rapporteur and the chairing of two sessions by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and Mr Jové Peres. In addition, delegates were constantly made aware of the importance of the European Parliament in dealing with the BSE crisis by the active participation of committee members in the discussions.

Overall the meat-and-bone meal conference and its results can be assessed as positive. As called for by the European Parliament, it represents a new approach to information policy by the Commission with a wide public, thus allowing a comprehensive discussion of this important subject. The Commission intends to present documentation on this conference in the near future.

The conference provided an opportunity to take stock of the most important questions connected with the production and use of meat-and-bone meal, and in many areas there was basic agreement among the delegates. At the same time it became clear where there were still gaps in knowledge, differences as regards content and where practical action was needed.

One of the most important results of the meat-and-bone meal conference is the broad consensus that the recycling of animal carcases and slaughter waste by the production of meat-and-bone meal offers the best alternative on economic, environmental and health policy grounds. However the essential precondition for the functioning of this traditional economic cycle is the observance of safe processing standards. In setting safe processing standards, the concern must be not only to combat BSE but also, in terms of disease prophylaxis, to ensure the comprehensive and effective removal of all potential pathogens. Member States which cannot or do not want to observe the high standards for carcase processing can only make use of incineration.

At the meat-and-bone meal conference there was a fundamental dispute between two scientists (Dr Riedinger and Dr Taylor) concerning the safety of certain inactivation processes. As it was not possible to clarify this important question conclusively it is now to be put to the competent scientific committees for discussion and evaluation as the Commissioner, Mrs Bonino, told the temporary committee at its meeting of 23 September 1997. The outcome of these deliberations is to be reported to the European Parliament.

It is disturbing that there are still major shortcomings as regards fundamental research. The appropriate research programmes must therefore be extended and stepped up with a balanced involvement of the competent and interested research establishments. In research on meat-and-bone meal an analytical test method to monitor the observance of processing standards (ELISA test) and a test procedure to detect meat-and-bone meal in concentrates (Ispra test) have now been developed. To check the validity of these methods collaborative tests should now be carried out as quickly as possibly in the EU.

It was clearly demonstrated to the delegates at the meat-and-bone meal conference that the meat-andbone meal processing standards in the USA are absolutely inadequate. Lines of conflict with the EU are already emerging on this matter as the European Parliament's approval of the forthcoming WHO agreements will doubtless be closely linked to the guarantee of a high level of preventive consumer and health protection. The relevant provisions in the WHO and the Codex Alimentarius must therefore be further developed towards a definition of the safety standard for meat-and-bone meal.

3.7.2 Submission forthwith of proposals for regulations governing the questions of animal feed and dealing with the following:

3.7.2.1 Confirmation of the general ban on the feeding of meat-and-bone meal to ruminants

Meat-and-bone meal may not be fed to ruminants and should be labelled accordingly. Appropriate measures must also be adopted to ensure that during manufacture no mixing with concentrates for ruminants occurs.

3.7.2.2 Ban on the feeding of carcases or offal of sick animals to all animals

For reasons of social acceptability, an investigation must be made of whether fallen stock, i.e. animals not suitable for human consumption, should be removed completely from processing. This would mean that only slaughter waste and slaughter by-products which are also suitable for human consumption will be processed into meat-and-bone meal. Such a measure covers about 15% of material and, on the basis of the system used in Sweden and Switzerland, would lead to the development of a separate carcase rendering line with correspondingly higher costs.

The Commission has announced that by October 1997 it will present a consultation paper on the basis of the results of the meat-and-bone meal conference, which amongst other things will address the question of removing fallen stocks from the feedingstuffs chain. The rapporteur therefore considers it absolutely essential that a decision on this issue should be taken before the end of the year.

During the visit of the delegation of the Temporary Committee to Great Britain a meat-and-bone meal plant was also visited. It was interesting to note that the tallow produced there was used for energy purposes with better emission values than that for the burning of heavy oil. In view of the large quantities of meat-and-bone meal (at present about 250 000 tonnes and rising) the question of the burning of meat-and-bone meal is being considered closely. There are technical problems but it should be possible to solve them. With current incineration capacities it would however be about 20 years before the existing material is dealt with. An expansion of capacity is planned but often meets with opposition from local neighbours who in one case handed a petition on this matter to the delegation.

3.7.2.3 Only the offal of animals which have been released for human consumption may, after it has been adequately sterilized (at 133ΊC, 3 bar for 20 minutes), be fed to non-ruminants such as pigs, poultry and fish

Takes the view that there must be no lowering of the current processing and utilization standards for meat-and-bone meal (113Ί C, 20 minutes, 3 bar; ban on feeding to ruminants). The Commission must instead ensure the immediate application of current legislation in all Member States;

3.7.3 Assurance to the European Parliament that Decision 96/449/EEC is implemented throughout the Community by 1 April 1997 as regards the standards applicable to the processing of meat-and-bone meal and that Member States will not be granted extensions

Decision 96/449/EEC was adopted by the Commission on 18 June 1996. The Member States therefore had plenty of time to make the necessary preparations for its implementation by the 1 April 1997 deadline. Nevertheless, a variety of shortcomings persist as regards implementation. One Member State (France) is even refusing altogether to apply the Decision.

After initially failing to display the necessary resolve in verifying whether the Decision was being applied in full and in instituting infringement proceedings in good time, the Commission decided on 26 June 1997 to institute the first stage of infringement proceedings against ten Member States pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty. The institution of those proceedings by the Commission was necessary and is therefore welcome in principle. However, the Commission must at the same time, in order to avoid unnecessary consumer uncertainty, always make public and assess the varying degree of risk for consumers of non-implementation in the Member States.

3.8 (together with the Council; by 1 September 1997:)

Measures to ensure uniform respect of maximum guarantees for the elimination of suspect meat-and-bone meal and dangerous or possibly dangerous animal waste, together with a ban on exports of these products to third countries

This paragraph is closely linked in with paragraph 3.7.3. To expand upon what was said in that paragraph, it must be pointed out that up to now there has been no scientifically exact and conclusive definition of 'high risk', 'low risk' and 'specified risk material'. There is an urgent need for clarity, as in the long term the consumer cannot be told that he can enjoy eating one part of the animal while another part of the same animal constitutes a risk.

It should be pointed out in this connection that the definition of BSE-free places of origin according to IOE standards should relate not only to third countries but must also be applied in the EU, in order to take the regionally differing risk potential into account. The origin of animals must be able to be clearly proven. Regions affected by BSE would at the same time receive clear guidelines which in the long term would make it possible for them to eradicate the problem of BSE and become BSE-free.

On 30 July 1997, the Commission adopted a Decision prohibiting the use of specified-risk material (SRM) in food and feedingstuffs and so did not wait for the final decision of the Scientific Steering Committee. The Scientific Steering Committee did not reach a definitive conclusion at its meeting of 8 September 1997, either. Irrespective of the priority accorded to consumer protection, individual aspects of the Commission Decision do not satisfy exact scientific criteria. Examples include paragraph 15 of the Decision, which states that the TSE situation may vary between Member States, the setting of the one-year age limit for animals, the withdrawal scenario and the problems affecting pharmaceuticals production.

Commissioner Fischler told the temporary committee on 24 September 1997 that Member States may adapt their programmes which are eligible under Structural Funds Objective 5a in order to obtain EU aid for the necessary technical upgrading.

He quite rightly stated that he was prepared to refer the matter of the age threshold in conjunction with other factors, such as maternal transmission, to the scientific committees.

3.9 Amendment of the legislation on animal nutrition with inclusion in labelling of a mandatory explicit declaration for feedingstuffs by their manufacturers which should facilitate the clear identification of components and of the origin of ingredients and on user instructions

The Commission has since submitted a directive on the marketing and labelling of straight and compound feedingstuffs (Directive 97/47/EC). In a further decision, the ban on the feeding to ruminants of protein obtained from mammalian tissue, for which veterinary legislation already provided, was incorporated into feedingstuffs legislation.

The committee of inquiry on BSE attached particular importance to the compulsory and unambiguous declaration of ingredients, not only as regards components, e.g. 'protein' but also as regards the origin of ingredients (e.g, protein from soya). Qualitative labelling of this kind poses a number of technical problems, especially as regards the identification of ingredients and the monitoring of such arrangements. The Commission has agreed to work towards ensuring that these problems are resolved. In particular, it is planned that Member States' official laboratories will carry out a study, on the basis of which the Commission intends to draw political conclusions by the end of the first half of 1998.

It must be pointed out, however, that the Commission has still only said it is prepared to examine the question of qualitative labelling. It has not yet stated its commitment in principle to this form of declaration for ingredients or given an undertaking to submit appropriate proposals once the technical difficulties have been resolved, and it should therefore be reminded to do so.

4. Adoption of measures to restore the smooth functioning of the markets

4.1 Efforts to achieve all possible cooperation with the UK authorities responsible for eradication of BSE and BSE-related protection measures with a view to ending the crisis as soon as possible

The principle of subsidiarity presupposes a will on the part of the Member States to transpose and apply legislation. The UK has hitherto had a good reputation for transposing Community legislation quickly and fully into national law. When it came to light this summer that there had been various breaches of the beef export ban, it became clear, however, that the export ban adopted in March 1996 had not been fully transposed into UK law until 1 August 1997. The UK therefore stands accused of failing, until very recently, to display the resolve needed to deal with the BSE crisis quickly and comprehensively.

The visit by a delegation from the temporary committee to the UK on 28-30 September 1997, however, offers some hope that the change of government in the UK has brought about a fundamental change in UK government attitudes. During the visit, the UK endeavoured to ensure transparency and cooperation and displayed a sincere desire to find the best possible solutions to the BSE-related problems faced. This does not mean, of course, that the UK government is not pursuing specific national interests, which are not always necessarily identical with European interests, and that shortcomings do not remain in some areas.

One such critical area is the system for monitoring the export ban adopted in March 1996, of which there have been several breaches of a criminal nature. The visit to the port of Dover on 28 September 1997 showed that some important mechanisms needed to provide effective protection for consumers outside the UK were still not in place. Whilst the frequency of checks has been increased (16 x 3 hours per month now, instead of 2 x 24 hours per month) and there is a graduated surveillance system, ranging from the checking of documents to, in suspicious circumstances, an inspection of the load and complete unloading of the HGV (physical checks), random checks are not carried out. Members of the committee were able to ascertain for themselves that since August, during the periods when checks were carried out, there had been virtually no consignments of meat. Only one physical check had been carried out in this connection (on petfood). The monitoring authority's computer system is up and running only for live animals, but is still being developed to deal with meat.

The Commission is therefore called upon to help identify and eliminate existing weaknesses by carrying out on-the-spot inspections. It is also called upon to submit a proposal for improving the UK monitoring system, which would sensibly combine checks at the place of origin with a greater number of random physical checks at ports and an effective system for passing on information to the authorities of the country of destination.

On 29 September 1997, members of the delegation were able to see a positive example of UK government efforts to contain BSE in action when they visited a slaughterhouse involved in the selective-cull programme. They were shown an effective system consisting in checks on ear tags and registration numbers, followed by the cutting-up and staining of carcasses, and finally removal to a MBM processing plant in closed and sealed containers. If this procedure is followed throughout the UK, and the rapporteur has no reason to doubt that it is not, there are practically no realistic opportunities for fraud.

Given the effective slaughter and destruction system for OTM animals, there are only two possible explanations for the cases of fraud that have recently come to light. Either the meat illegally exported from the UK could in theory have been from animals slaughtered before the present slaughtering system was introduced (May 1996) or, more likely, it was meat authorized for human consumption in the UK and then illegally shipped to the continent to take advantage of the considerable price differentials that at times existed.

It must be added, however, that notwithstanding the good overall impression made on the delegation as regards the cull programme, the Commission still identified shortcomings in its inspection reports of January and April 1997. There were, for example, shortcomings in the implementation of the system, e.g. discrepancies between the weight of material when it left the slaughterhouse and the weight when it arrived at the rendering plant. The UK is called upon to ensure that an effective remedy is found to this problem.

4.2 The following considerations should be seen as fundamental elements in future changes to the rules of the CAP:

4.2.1 Priority for the market interests of the COMs is only a shortsighted policy option for the CAP

4.2.2 Restoration of consumer confidence through appropriate guarantees for public health protection is the only way to ensure a viable agricultural policy which satisfies both consumers and producers

This demand relates to the reform of the CAP and is therefore dealt with in paragraphs 6.2 and 6.6.

4.3 Submission without delay of a proposal for a harmonized system of certification for meat in order to restore consumer confidence in this sector

The Commission submitted a proposal in good time on the registration of bovine animals and the labelling of beef, which has already been adopted by the Council (Regulation(EC) No 820/97). Both Parliament and the Commission considered Article 100a of the Treaty to be the correct legal basis, but the Council adopted the regulation unanimously on the basis of Article 43. The Commission is to be commended on having challenged this in the European Court of Justice.

Its adoption by the Council has meant that a voluntary labelling system has been introduced, on a transitional basis, which is not set to become compulsory in all Member States until 1 January 2000. In view of the recently revealed breaches of the ban on exports of beef from the UK, the Commission is called upon to submit, on the basis of Article 100a of Treaty, a proposal providing for the labelling of beef to become compulsory throughout the Community at an earlier date, ideally at some point during 1998.

5. Measures corresponding to the responsibilities identified by the committee of inquiry

5.1 Submission of legislative proposals with a view to making the authorities which have allowed the disease to appear and spread responsible for the financial costs of BSE

The committee of inquiry's wording causes problems, since submission of the relevant legislative proposals would immediately raise the question of a possible violation of the legal principle of nonretroactivity, and the Commission has to date never submitted legislative proposals of this type.

Irrespective of legislative measures, however, the question remains of enforcing claims for damages based on the principle of making the responsible party pay. This recommendation is therefore closely connected with paragraph 5.3, which looks at the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against the UK. In this connection, the Commission points out that the Treaties do not provide for action for damages against the UK and that bringing such action before a British court would not be an appropriate course of action.

According to the First Progress Report (p. 35 of the English version, footnote 14):

'It would be highly problematic to determine what the damages might be. Financial contributions have been made by the Community in full knowledge[![ of the actions of the United Kingdom.'

In view of the breaches of the export ban which subsequently came to light and the delay in transposing Community legislation into national law, this assessment by the Commission takes on fresh significance and constitutes an argument for rather than against bringing a claim for damages against the UK.

Unlike the Commission, Parliament's Legal Service, in its opinion, does not consider the chances of successfully bringing a claim for damages in a British court to be hopeless from the outset. The Commission is therefore called upon to review its negative position on this matter in the light of the arguments put forward.

5.2 Adoption of the necessary personnel and disciplinary measures with regard to the incorrect behaviour of Commission officials

As regards the measures taken by the Commission to deal with the BSE crisis, the committee of inquiry on BSE noted substantial management errors, inadequate coordination and serious organizational shortcomings. In addition, it found that at least four Commission officials had committed personal errors which went beyond shortcomings of a mere organizational and structural nature. The committee of inquiry therefore considered it necessary to recommend personnel and disciplinary measures with regard to the personal misconduct of certain Commission officials.

The temporary committee had an opportunity to exchange views on this matter with Mr Liikanen, Commissioner responsible for personnel matters, Mr Fischler, Commissioner with political responsibility for DG VI, and with the Head of the Commission's Legal Service, Mr Dewost, during which it became clear that the Commission was now taking decisive action to tackle organizational weaknesses (separation of legislative activities and monitoring; reorganization of DG VI).

As regards personnel matters, the officials responsible for veterinary issues have been assigned to other duties, some outside DG VI. Article 50 of the Staff Regulations (Retirement in the interests of the service) has been applied to one official. The rapporteur wishes to point out that these transfers represent the absolute minimum action necessary. It is obvious that further misconduct on the part of the officials concerned in areas of relevance to BSE is no longer possible because they have been transferred.

However, neither transfer nor application of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations is of a disciplinary nature, i.e. they do not constitute a judgement of individual misconduct in the past. It must be pointed out that, depending on the gravity of the misconduct established during disciplinary proceedings, the Staff Regulations provide for varying degrees of disciplinary measures ranging from a mere reprimand or a warning to removal from post. Disciplinary inquiries are initiated if, as in the case in question, there are well-founded indications of individual misconduct. The inquiries are, however, conducted in such a way as not to prejudge the outcome, are governed by rule-of-law principles and decisions are subject to European judicial review.

The Commission has so far launched disciplinary proceedings in just one case. However, in view of the cases of personal misconduct it identified, the committee of inquiry on BSE in no way assumed there would be just one case, but recommended disciplinary action in several cases. The rapporteur therefore notes that the Commission has not implemented the recommendation fully enough.

The Commission has even stated that the personnel measures outlined (transfers and application of Article 50) were merely aimed at improving management of the veterinary services and had nothing to do with the BSE crisis. This line of argument would, not only in view of the considerable impact of general management shortcomings and organizational weaknesses on the handling of the BSE crisis, appear to be more than questionable.

It must be made clear to every Commission official that he cannot hide behind management errors and organizational shortcomings, of which there were plenty in this case, and that, in the case of individual misconduct, he will be personally called to account. The Commission is therefore called upon to launch disciplinary inquiries in the other relevant cases, too

In 1995, the Commission began to take a number of measures in order to remedy the general organizational shortcomings that had become apparent. At the request of Mr Legras, the responsible Director-General, the Inspections générales des services (IGS) carried out an internal inspection of the veterinary services, which was, however, confined to one small sector (bighead disease in pigs). When the results of the inspection were submitted, Mr Legras, in a note dated 17 November 1995 to Commissioner Fischler, recommended extensive organizational and personnel changes. Commissioner Fischler issued instructions in a note dated 12 December 1995 for such changes to be made.

The question remains open as to why BSE was a taboo area in earlier inquiries and why the Commission, in view of past mistakes, has never launched similar internal inquiries in relation to BSE. This consistent failure to act might suggest that former Commissioners and their cabinets could be implicated by such inquiries.

In view of this, it is recommended that Parliament call on the Commission to arrange without delay, on the basis of the committee of inquiry's findings and of files that have not yet been examined, an internal service inspection by the Service Général concerning the handling of the BSE crisis.

Addendum following presentation of the Fourth Progress Report

With regard to its handling of the BSE crisis, the Commission continues to admit only to a breakdown in organization. It refuses to take disciplinary measures against individual officials, however, because it claims not to have found any 'compelling reasons' which would justify such proceedings.

However welcome the reorganization and the reshuffle of officials at all levels of the veterinary service is, it is not an adequate response to the personal misdemeanours unearthed by the BSE Committee of Inquiry. It is indicative in this respect that of the range of punishments provided by the disciplinary rules, not even those which may be imposed under Article 87 of the Staff Regulations without consulting the Disciplinary Board (written warning/reprimand) have yet been applied.

The rapporteur does not share the Commission's view that 'past failings' have already 'been remedied'. The suspicion that springs more readily to mind is that by drawing a final line under the matter prematurely, something is being hushed up and a cover-up is taking place to absolve the officials implicated, even at cabinet level. Even for the organizational failings of an administration, there are people responsible, in an administrative or political capacity, for what happens. Undoubtedly, by threatening to pass a vote of no confidence in the Commission for failure to act, the European Parliament unequivocally assigned political responsibility not only to the previous but also the present Commission.

Moreover, in the light of experience, the European Parliament should insist in future that the heads of the Commissioners' private offices should also be made accountable as well as Commission experts and the Commissioners themselves.

In its Inspectorate General, the Commission has an effective instrument with which to dispel the suspicion of a cover-up. Only an internal investigation into the handling of the BSE crisis by the responsible Commission departments can draw a line under the Commission's organizational and personal failings in the past and create a viable foundation for future cooperation with the European Parliament on a basis of confidence.

Notwithstanding the preceding fundamental criticism of the Commission's conduct in regard to taking disciplinary measures, Commission President Santer's commitment to undertake a thorough review of the Staff Regulations, with particular regard to the practicability of disciplinary proceedings, points in the right direction and is, therefore, to be warmly welcomed.

5.3 If the Commission denies responsibility, as was suggested by the Commission President on 15 January 1997 when speaking before the committee of inquiry, immediate bringing of administrative proceedings against the United Kingdom for repayment of all sums allocated in previous years for the purposes of eradicating BSE

The committee of inquiry on BSE introduced its recommendation with the words 'If the Commission denies responsibility' quite deliberately. After the temporary committee has completed its work, this proviso can no longer apply. The Commission representatives openly admitted to the committee that their institution was partly to blame for past mistakes, even though personal misconduct by individual officials has hitherto gone largely unpunished.

Nevertheless, there remains the problem of how to enforce claims for damages against the UK (cf. paragraph 5.1) and the question of whether it is possible to demand repayment of EU monies paid to the UK to help eradicate BSE.

In the light of the temporary committee's deliberations, the clearance of accounts would appear to be an appropriate means of ensuring that the conditions laid down in Community legislation have been met in the case of BSE-related expenditure effected by the UK and financed from the Community budget. If the Commission establishes that Community rules have not been complied with, e.g. as a result of inadequate export controls, it may decide to refuse funding. In the past, this procedure has in other cases led to considerable sums being repaid to the Community budget.

The Commission is therefore called upon to give priority, in the context of the clearance of accounts, to ascertaining whether BSE-related expenditure by the UK is in accordance with Community rules, and, if it is not, to consistently refuse funding.

Moreover, pursuant to Article 206 of the Treaty, it falls to Parliament to give discharge to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the budget. The rapporteur is in no doubt that Parliament will return to the rendering of accounts for BSE-related expenditure on that occasion.

Commissioner Fischler gave the following account to the temporary committee on 24 September 1997 concerning veterinary inspections in the UK:

'During one visit (in April 1997), checks were also made on the selective slaughter procedures, and, during a subsequent visit, in July 1997, we checked what action had been taken in response to the problems identified in April. We then wrote to the UK authorities recommending procedural improvements designed to protect Community resources and prevent fraudulent trade in beef covered by the various schemes. Bilateral talks were held in Brussels on problems which required further clarification'

In view of this, the rapporteur takes the view that the Commission already has ample information to warrant immediate verification of matters pertaining to the clearance of accounts in relation to BSErelated measures in the UK.

5.4 Application of the procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty to those Member States which have not fulfilled their obligations under the Treaty

The Commission initially lacked the necessary resolve as regards monitoring to ascertain whether Decision 96/449/EEC (procedure for the heat treatment of animal waste) was being applied in full and as regards the timely institution of infringement proceedings. However, it did decide on 26 June 1997 to institute the first stage of Treaty infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty against 10 Member States (cf. paragraph 3.7.3). In mid-September 1997, infringement proceedings were instituted against the UK concerning controls at slaughterhouses and cutting plants.

In view of the measures taken, it must be acknowledged that the Commission has implemented the committee of inquiry's recommendation in a satisfactory manner, if not always as quickly as possible. In this connection, the Commission was asked by the rapporteur to answer a number of questions on the monitoring of the situation in the UK and to provide the relevant original documents. It complied on 22 September 1997, when it handed over two relevant files.

These files reveal that weaknesses exist prior to the institution of Treaty infringement proceedings. Where shortcomings are noted during veterinary inspections, the situation is discussed with the Member State concerned, which then usually promises to do better. The Commission often takes it at its word and a follow-up inspection to ascertain whether the shortcomings identified have actually been remedied normally does not take place, at least not automatically. This leads to considerable delays in instituting infringement proceedings, which then become necessary if, despite the assurances of the Member State concerned, the shortcomings criticized have not been adequately remedied.

The Commission is therefore called upon always to conduct follow-up inspections, prior to infringement proceedings, in order to ascertain whether shortcomings identified and criticized during an earlier inspection have in fact been remedied. Since inadequate implementation of Community rules identified during an initial inspection necessitates the follow-up inspection, the cost of the latter should in principle be borne in full by the Member State concerned.

5.5 (After being called upon to do so by the European Parliament:)

Institution of proceedings against the UK government in the European Court of Justice on the basis of Article 3(2) of the joint decision of Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 and Article 169 of the Treaty on account of the failure of Mr Hogg, the UK Minister of Agriculture, to appear before the committee

The committee of inquiry on BSE assumed that the then UK Minister of Agriculture, Mr Hogg, was legally bound to appear before it. However, the UK government interprets the English version of Article 3(2) of the interinstitutional decision of 19 April 1995 as not providing for any such legal obligation. The new UK government is sticking by this interpretation. The current Minister of Agriculture, Mr Cunningham, has given a personal undertaking to the temporary committee that he would appear before a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament if so requested in future, but rejected the idea that he was legally obliged to do so.

The Commission shares the UK's interpretation and therefore considers the chances of success of proceedings against the UK pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty for failing to comply with the obligation laid down in Article 3(2) of the interinstitutional decision of 19 April 1995 to be 'less than slight'.

The report drawn up by Parliament's Legal Service (cf. Annex II to this report) stresses Parliament's right of inquiry as guaranteed by Article 138c in conjunction with Article 5 of the Treaty and comes to the conclusion that the government of the Member State concerned must give proper reasons for its refusal and, in any event, nominate a member of the government whom the committee of inquiry can contact in order to proceed with its work. The UK government has done neither.

The interinstitutional decision comes up for review in 1999, i.e. at the end of Parliament's current term. In order to avoid proceedings being instituted in the European Court of Justice, Parliament should formally request the Council to agree on a binding interpretation which would in future ensure that a member of a government would appear before a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament. The temporary committee has itself already addressed a such a request to the Luxembourg Presidency. When the interinstitutional decision is reviewed in 1999, its wording should be made unambiguous.

If the Council considers itself unable to give such a binding interpretation, the Commission is called upon, as guardian of the Treaties, to institute appropriate proceedings in the European Court of Justice with the aim of fully upholding Parliament's right of inquiry,

6. Other recommendations

6.1 Proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference for an amendment of the Treaty enabling a motion of censure to be tabled against individual members of the Commission (Article 144, to be carried by the same majority as is required in the case of a motion of censure against the Commission as a whole)

The Commission rejects the use of a motion of censure on individual Members of the Commission arguing that it is incompatible with the principle of the Commission as a collegiate body and has therefore not submitted a corresponding proposal to the Intergovernmental Conference. It is therefore clear that this recommendation by the committee of inquiry on BSE has not been implemented.

The rapporteur takes the view that, regardless of the Commission's collegiate nature, each individual Member of the Commission is politically and personally accountable for all actions and omissions in the area for which he is responsible. The call for the introduction of a motion of censure on an individual Member of the Commission should be maintained as way of ensuring that the Commission is fully accountable to Parliament. The political groups represented in Parliament will, if necessary, need to come to an agreement on a political mechanism which guarantees that the political accountability of individual Commissioners is appropriately defined, even if not at the level of a motion of censure provided for in the Treaty.

It should also be pointed out in this connection that the outcome of the IGC in Amsterdam substantially strengthened the institutional role of the Commission President, e.g. as regards the allocation of portfolios to Members of the Commission. This, however, also means that he bears greater responsibility for taking action where individual Commissioners are clearly failing in their duties or for re-allocating portfolios as necessary in response to initiatives of the European Parliament.

6.2 Submission of proposals by the Commissioner for Agriculture for the re-structuring of the current CAP, to cover:

6.2.1 Promotion of extensive farming practices

6.2.2 Increase the amount of land under cultivation

6.2.3 Ban on all practices which could be harmful for animal health and human health

The changes to the CAP announced in Agenda 2000 and due to be set out in greater detail in the proposals for amendments to the regulations governing individual COMs constitute the background against which the committee of inquiry's demands are to be considered.

Detailed analysis of the proposals for reforming agriculture to ascertain their compatibility with its demands would, however, go far beyond the BSE committee's remit. As the timetable stands, the specific amendments to legislation will not be available until after the follow-up committee has completed its work.

The task of ascertaining whether the agricultural reforms are also consistent with the objectives laid down by the BSE committee falls to the standing committee responsible for agriculture. The followup committee's report should therefore contain only some basic comments.

Consideration of the proposal for a regulation amending the COM in beef announced in the section of Agenda 2000 devoted to agriculture should be brought forward and given priority, in order, amongst other things, to achieve a balanced market as soon as possible. The non-marketing premium introduced in individual Member States since 1992, also known as the 'Herod premium', can then be scrapped, as it is not compatible with beef production methods which take into account animal welfare and species-related factors.

The call for more extensive farming practices and for an increase in the area under cultivation may, if local factors are taken into account, promote the aims of sustainable agriculture. It has to be borne in mind that an assessment of production intensity and/or its impact on the environment must be based on optimum specific intensity (i.e. the best possible relationship between inputs and output in a given set of circumstances), which varies according to local conditions and type of product.

The Commission's assertion that the scrapping of compulsory set-aside and reorientation of premiums would inevitably lead to greater extensification must be questioned. Experience with the 1992 CAP reform, when the Commission likewise claimed that reorganization of the system would lead to extensification, shows that, at least in some regions and some types of farming, there has been no reduction in intensity. The annual rate of production growth has, however, declined on the whole.

The banning of all forms of farming potentially damaging to animal or human health is, as in the case of food safety and quality, to be regarded as a fundamental prerequisite.

It is therefore to be welcomed that, as a result of the experiences with BSE, the use of Avoparcin as a growth promoter was banned as a precaution, after a protracted struggle, on 1 April 1997.

6.3 Strict vigilance concerning the reporting of all BSE cases throughout the European Union as there is reason to believe that there have been instances of under reporting

Suspicions that large numbers of BSE cases in the EU have gone unreported have as yet not been substantiated, though they were recently rekindled by a statistical study by Wilesmith, Schreuder and Straub, which assumes a high rate of under reporting and claims, for instance that, in Germany, the number of BSE cases is 48 times higher than the five cases recorded. The methods used in this study are, however, seriously flawed. The report is based on inadmissible statistical calculations and in particular does not take account of the different structures and infection rates in the cattle breeds exported from the UK. Commission representatives have conceded to the temporary committee that such flaws exist.

Theories that there have been considerably more cases of BSE than have actually been recorded have still not been substantiated and therefore bear more relation to speculation. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that any suspected withholding of information has to be investigated very thoroughly by the Member States and the Commission so as to nip credibility problems in the bud.

The Commission has therefore begun drawing up a proposal for a Council instrument on the monitoring of BSE. It was becoming clear as long ago as the early 1990s that BSE would not be confined to the UK for ever. Thus 15 cases were recorded in Ireland between 1985 and 1989. In 1990, a case came to light in Switzerland. 1991 saw the first cases of BSE in France. In view of this, the Commission proposal, however welcome and necessary it may be, comes at least five years too late.

6.4 Review of the Florence decision of 11 June 1996 (96/362) to lift the import ban on gelatin derived from cattle

The Florence decision laid down a series of conditions and procedures which would have permitted the export of gelatin made from British bovine animal products. In the meantime, the Commission has in effect suspended implementation of the Florence decision in the light of 'later information that inactivation of the BSE agent could not be guaranteed in the production process' (First Progress Report, p. 39 of the English version), and this is to be welcomed. It must be made clear in this connection that the committee of inquiry on BSE uncovered a large number of peculiarities in connection with the gelatin decision.

The Scientific Steering Committee is due to deliver an opinion on tallow and tallow products, sperm and embryos shortly.

6.5 Cooperation with the Member States so that the public is kept systematically and fully informed about all aspects of nutrition that are important for public health

The most direct form of cooperation between the Commission and the Member States on food safety is in the field of legislation, with the provision of consumer information generally taking priority. The Commission has hitherto submitted most of its proposals for food legislation in the form of directives. This has proved a hindrance to transposition, since, pursuant to Article 189 of the Treaty, directives are binding as to the result to be achieved but leave to the Member States the choice of form and methods. Without constituting unlawful practice, this has often meant that Member States have applied legislation differently, which has not done much to encourage the provision of full consumer information or to create a level playing field for competition. The Commission has therefore announced that it intends to rely on regulations more in future, something which has not met with unqualified approval from the Member States but which is emphatically welcomed by the rapporteur.

As regards the provision of consumer information on the quality of foodstuffs, there is a clear demarcation between the Member States and the Commission. At Community level, sectoral quality rules exist only in exceptional cases (e.g. fruit, eggs and wine) and multi-sectoral rules exist only in specific areas (e.g. designations of origin and organic farming). In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, quality policy is a matter for the Member States, many of which allow producers to adopt voluntary rules; quality standards and quality seals are laid down on an independent basis and can then be promoted accordingly. Such efforts on the part of producers should be flanked more and receive greater encouragement at the national level.

The rapporteur also welcomes the information campaign on food safety proposed by the Commission in Article B5-103 of the 1998 draft budget.

6.6 Changes to the common agricultural policy so as to create a framework which makes possible and reinforces the responsibility of agricultural holdings for the production of healthy food using sustainable farming methods

The Commission is called upon to consistently apply the principle of adapting measures to local conditions when submitting proposals for individual production sectors, as this is a prerequisite for the production of healthy food and for sustainable farming; welcomes in this connection the positive response of the Commission in acknowledging the need for regional and/or local factors to be taken into account when determining optimum specific intensity.

In this context, Regulation 2078/92 must be applied more flexibly and, where necessary, co-financing by the EU must be increased correspondingly, although 100% financing by the EU must be ruled out on principle. The Commission agreed to draw up a report on the practical implementation and effectiveness of Regulation 2078/92. It must now be submitted without delay.

III. SUMMARY EVALUATION

On 23 April 1997, the Temporary Committee was given a remit 'to monitor the Commission's followup of the recommendations made by the Committee of Inquiry into BSE'.

The remit quite deliberately involved a process. Given the time-frame within which European policy normally takes place, it cannot be expected that all the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE will be fully implemented within six months.

It is more important that the Commission shares the European Parliament's policy objectives and takes appropriate decisions which it implements in accordance with a clear and agreed timetable (cf. Fourth Progress Report, Table A). Further monitoring of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into BSE is now the responsibility of the European Parliament's various standing committees.

It must be stressed in this context that a purely numerical approach to follow-up of the Committee of Inquiry's recommendations does not do justice to the complexity of the subject matter. A multitude of different, complex fields are involved in which progress is being made little by little, i.e. as part of a political process. An unequivocal, definitive overall assessment in terms of 'mission accomplished' or 'mission failed' is seldom possible.

Overall, however, it should be stressed that a great deal of progress has been made in a relatively short time. The Commission has, in fact, implemented most of the Committee of Inquiry's recommendations either in full or in part. This applies, in particular, to the reorganization of its departments, the effort to improve transparency, the initiation of proceedings for infringement of the Treaties, legislative initiatives and future strengthening of cooperation on veterinary checks.

In implementing recommendations with a bearing on consumer policy, the Commission has made good progress. Nevertheless, wherever problems arise in the legal 'mire' - including different assessments by the legal services - the Commission does not exactly distinguish itself by its particular commitment and resolve.

The missing detail and the need for further action are clearly addressed under the individual points. Most of the conclusions also relate to this continued need for action.

Notwithstanding the positive overall impression, there is fundamental disagreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on the following five points of a total of over sixty which, it must be noted, the Commission has failed to implement:

- Point 5.1 (legislative proposals for recovering the costs of BSE)

- Point 5.2 (disciplinary measures)

- Point 5.3 (administrative proceedings against the United Kingdom)

- Point 5.5 (proceedings against the British Government for the failure of the Agriculture Minister, Mr Hogg, to appear before the committee)

- Point 6.1 (motion of censure against individual members of the Commission).

Decision on the setting up of a temporary committee of inquiry instructed to monitor the action taken on the recommendations made concerning BSE(1)

B4-0350/97

The European Parliament,

- having regard to Rule 135(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to its resolution of 19 February 1997 on the results of the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE(2), and in particular paragraph 7 thereof,

- having regard to the specific nature of the recommendations made by that temporary committee of inquiry,

1. Decides, without prejudice to the powers and responsibilities of the standing parliamentary committees as regards legislative issues, to set up a temporary committee instructed to monitor the action taken by the European Commission on the recommendations made by the Temporary Committee of Inquiry into BSE;

2. Decides that that temporary committee shall consist of 20 members;

3. Instructs the temporary committee to submit a report to the Conference of Presidents before the first part-session in November 1997 at the latest.

LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE ON THE FOLLOW-UP OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON BSE

(1) OJ C 150, 19.05.1997, p. 9. (2) OJ C 85, 17.03.1997, p. 61.