Euro MPs pull no punches in BSE inquiry

Date: 09/01/1997

By Michael Mann

WHEN MEPs on the European Parliament's temporary committee of inquiry into BSE meet Commission President Jacques Santer next week to discuss their findings after six months of exhaustive investigations, it will be a historic occasion.

Coming from the first-ever inquiry committee to complete its work, the conclusions of the report drawn up by Spanish MEP Manuel Medina Ortega will break new ground.

Whether they break any hearts or any careers will depend on how seriously those accused of wrongdoing choose to take the Parliament's recommendations.

But the committee has already notched up perhaps its greatest achievement: whatever else happens, the EU institutions have been made aware that they will, in future, be held fully accountable for their actions.

Time and again, Parliament has accused the Commission and the UK government of adopting a lackadaisical approach to what has become one of the most frightening health scares of recent decades.

This has already prompted a response. There is not a shadow of a doubt that the Commission has been taking an ultra-cautious approach to its handling of the BSE crisis since the committee began its deliberations.

In July, Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler proposed removing certain sheep and goat tissues from the human and animal food chains, on the basis of initial research suggesting these animals could under laboratory conditions be infected with the BSE agent.

The reaction from many member states suggested Fischler had misjudged the mood in national capitals.

Most were unwilling to allow their livestock to be tarred with the same brush as the French and British, who have a long-standing problem with the sheep disease scrapie, and feared that such a ban could do just that.

There is also no doubt that the publicity generated by the committee has begun to seep through into the Union's overall approach to food policy-making.

Its effects were also evident in the EU's soul-searching at the end of last year over whether to approve the use of a new strain of genetically-modified maize.

But despite the additional care taken over recent months, the Commission is unlikely to emerge from the inquiry without a large quantity of egg on its face.

Over the past few months, MEPs have brought to light a stream of internal Commission papers which, they claim, implicate the EU executive in a cover-up.

The most high-profile of these was a memo from Guy Legras, the Commission's top agriculture official, to a colleague in the industry division. MEPs claimed this to be evidence of a clear attempt by the Directorate-General for agriculture (DGVI) to keep mad cow disease out of the news, in order to avoid a collapse in the beef market.

Similar charges have been made about apparent attempts to stifle concerns emerging from the Directorate-General for health (DGV).

Fischler, Legras, senior veterinary official Lars Hoelgaard and former Agriculture Commissioners Ray MacSharry and René Steichen have all strenuously denied any suggestion of a cover-up, insisting that they acted as swiftly as they could on the basis of the expert advice available at the time.

Responding to stinging criticism that the Commission failed to implement any BSE-related controls in the UK between 1990 and 1994, MacSharry claimed that his requests for additional resources were turned down.

Among its recommendations, the Parliament is set to call for a shake-up in the EU's scientific procedures relating to human and animal health.

MEPs have been surprised by the lack of resources in terms of personnel as much as anything else for dealing with BSE. Such shortcomings were revealed in part by an internal DGVI report on the workings of the veterinary service, which underlined the limited resources with which the Commission had to work in an area where Union governments are loath to cede sovereignty.

Before Christmas, Fischler sought to head off some of the MEPs' likely criticisms of the EU's committee structures by pledging to look into the appointment of scientific advisers, their political independence, time-limits for delivering opinions, the need for full-time committee managers and the coordination of advice from different sources.

But echoing MacSharry's sentiments, Fischler pointed to a lack of financial resources provided by the other Union institutions and stressed that the Commission was “not a police force monitoring every citizen or company”.

Much of the future responsibility for ensuring tight standards will reside with the new veterinary and plant health body in Ireland but even this is likely to fall short of Parliament's expectations, particularly if EU governments continue to be unwilling to give it the independent status of an agency.

There have also been suggestions, which Fischler has been keen to support, that the Parliament might acquire a certain amount of influence over how the Irish-based body is run.

Giving it the status of an agency would move it away from the control of DGVI. Some commentators have suggested it might be more appropriate to place its responsibilities within the remit of DGV (health) or DGXXIV (consumer affairs).

Certainly, Medina Ortega's report is likely to reflect some of the views expressed by Consumer Affairs Commissioner Emma Bonino when she gave evidence to the committee.

Suggesting that farm interests were too dominant in the development of policy, Bonino put forward the idea of giving the recently formed multi-disciplinary BSE committee a more formal status.

But there are those on the committee who feel things will only change significantly if heads within the Commission are seen to roll.

Both MacSharry and Steichen are long gone, and Fischler can claim with some justification that by the time he arrived on the scene, the damage had been done. (The only possible area of concern for the current Commissioner is his apparently rushed and much criticised decision to push a proposal to ease the ban on UK-produced gelatine.)

Some are pointing the finger at Legras, but realistic observers think his position is secure after ten years at the helm of DGVI.

Others believe Deputy Director-General Fernando Mansito Caballero should be the fall guy, while a third group has picked out senior veterinary officials for attention. The Commission vet with major responsibility for BSE has the misfortune of being a British national.

Indeed, the UK is set to get the biggest rap on the knuckles from MEPs angry about Farm Minister Douglas Hogg's refusal to even attend the parliamentary hearings.

“In theory, we could ask the Commission to take the UK to court,” said committee chairman Reimer Böge, adding: “Because Mr Hogg refused to attend, I reject all criticisms he will make later.”

The UK has come in for repeated and bitter criticism for apparently failing to implement sufficiently stringently a number of measures introduced from 1988 onwards which were designed to reduce the spread of the disease and any health risk to humans.

The UK's Chief Veterinary Officer Keith Meldrum has, however, firmly defended his government's record.

“The allegation of a UK conspiracy is a serious charge. I am not aware of any evidence presented to the committee to provide any support for such allegations, nor do I expect you will hear any for the simple reason that these allegations are completely untrue,” Meldrum told MEPs.

But Böge has made no secret of his distaste for the UK authorities' reluctance to take rapid and decisive action to separate infected and BSE-free herds, and to ensure that the ban on meat and bonemeal in ruminant feed was properly implemented.

The big question is, of course, how much difference the committee's findings will actually make. Criticism of the UK government will, after all, merely be grist to the mill of an administration whose relations with the EU institutions can barely get worse.

Ortega's report is due to be published on 13 January. It will then be discussed by MEPs on 21-22 January, with a full debate on the final text scheduled for their February plenary session.