Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.6.1-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, practice has shown that scandals and crises can have a cleansing effect and can help improve legislation. This is most certainly the case for all legislation related to food safety, either directly or indirectly. There are ample examples to prove this.
It is now more than 20 years, for example, since the discovery of the presence of female sex hormones in jars of baby food led directly to the hormone directives being issued in 1981 and 1985 and revised in 1988. Another example is the clenbuterol scandal which led to the slaughter of more than 15 000 calves in North Rhine-Westphalia in 1988 and which brought about a change in the original legislation of the hormone directives in 1996. In Flanders, where I come from, we now have what I would term, without hesitation, the strictest national hormone legislation in Europe following a whole series of attacks on meat inspectors and the murder of the devoted veterinary surgeon, Karel Van Noppen.
Scandals can have a cleansing effect. This is also evident today as we scrutinise the amendment to Directive 95/53 at second reading. Once again, this amendment has been prompted by a minor scandal, namely the importing of citrus pulp from Brazil contaminated with dioxin. Citrus pulp is used as a feed for dairy cows and this is how dioxin ended up in milk for public consumption. The authorities in Baden-Württemberg discovered this, got the ball rolling and established that between December 1997 and February 1998, a total of nearly 106 000 tonnes of contaminated pulp entered the European Union. The scandal taught us that the Commission did not have the means to act forcefully in emergencies. As a result, the Commission presented, at the request of the Member States, a proposal to amend the present directive on 4 November 1998. As early as 16 December of that same year, Parliament assented to this proposal without tabling one single amendment. After the Treaty of Amsterdam came into effect, the Commission immediately changed the legal basis of 100 A to 152. On 15 November last, the Council laid down the present common position. The Council made a few editorial changes, which were not a problem for us at the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. What does cause a problem for us, however, is the way in which the Council has robbed the Commission of the ability to act immediately in case of an emergency.
I will have to put my technical hat on for a moment and mention the tangle of comitology legislation because, since the Commission proposal has been submitted, comitology legislation has been changed and, from now on, Council Decision 1999/468 applies. This legislation offers us various procedures for transferring the powers of the Council to the Commission. Today, we should focus on Articles 5 and 6 of the Council Decision. Article 5 provides for a regulatory procedure, Article 6 for a safeguard procedure. The original Commission proposal, as it was approved by our Parliament at first reading, was clearly written in the spirit of the existing safeguard procedure. The Council would now like to do away with it in its common position and replace it by the regulatory procedure. It should, however, be clear to all MEPs that the Commission cannot act independently according to this latter procedure and must always seek permission from the Council. After the citrus pulp scandal, the Member States themselves requested that the Commission should act. I am of the opinion that we should give the Commission the opportunity to act swiftly. The four amendments which have been tabled aim to ensure that Article 6 of comitology legislation, i.e. the safeguard procedure, can be applied. The Commission will then be able to act immediately in cases of emergency and can then, for example, suspend the importing of products which would harm public and animal health. The Council will then have 30 days to change, supplement or even reverse this decision. If the Council fails to act during these 30 days, the measures enacted by the Commission will then lapse. I believe that this is good working practice – so far, the Council has never abused this kind of power – and it therefore deserves our support, against the wishes of the Council.
We should all bear in mind that this dossier is only an intermediate step. On the day my report was approved in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, the European Commission submitted a new proposal to amend Directive 95/53/EC. It immediately drew lessons from the dioxin crisis. If Parliament and the Council adopt the same line as the Commission, a whole chapter will be devoted to further developing the safeguard clause and animal feed will come under a rapid system. In fact, these matters are included in the White Paper and have helped the Commission keep its initial promises on the White Paper with regard to food safety.
Mr President, I am in favour of adopting the four amendments tomorrow and thus giving the Commission our full support. We should join forces with the Commission against the Council and move towards a conciliation procedure."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples