Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.3.2-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Philip Whitehead and the draftspersons Messrs Pesälä, Folias, Hudghton, Kuckelkorn, Pomés Ruiz and Mrs Gebhardt, and their committees for their report on the proposal for a general food law and the establishment of the European Food Authority. I appreciate the excellent work that has been done and would also like to thank all those involved, including my own staff, for the speed this complex proposal has been dealt with. I would also to thank the Members here this morning for their generous remarks in relation to the work undertaken by the Commission.
Similar problems are raised by Amendments Nos 55 and 56 on the precautionary principle. We cannot accept Amendment No 55, as it is appropriate to retain some discretion without a mandatory requirement to act and, perhaps, for no measures to be adopted as a satisfactory risk management action. This was part of the Commission's communication, as endorsed by Parliament and Council, and therefore contradicts positions adopted previously by this House. Although many of the points in Amendment No 56 reflect these positions, the text is too detailed and our legal advice is that this would cause problems in a legally binding regulation. We cannot accept Amendment No 63, which requires food control work and surveillance to be kept confidential. Any necessary confidentiality will be covered in the horizontal control text to be proposed in the near future.
There are several other amendments relating to general food law which we can accept in principle and, once reviewed, align with the general principles and orientation of the text. We can only accept the first part of Amendment 61, which makes the legal responsibilities of feed businesses more precise. In Amendment No 69 we can only accept the reference to transport. We can accept the concept in Amendment No 80 that dangerous foods and feeds should not be exported, but I will need to review how this should be drafted. This concept is also found in Amendment No 82, but we cannot accept the part of this amendment which refers to the supplier taking products back, as this confuses the legal meanings of import and export.
Amendments Nos 70 and 75 on whistle-blowers are acceptable in principle, but we will consider a more appropriate text. We cannot accept Amendments Nos 48 and 189, which are inappropriate for the date of application of different parts of the text. As regards Amendment No 185, it would not be possible to have a report on the application of the principles of food law, as these will not have an impact for a significant period of time.
We can accept, in principle, Amendment No 47, by extending the definition of the status of production and distribution covered by Chapter II of the Regulation. We can accept, in principle, Amendments Nos 85 and 207 on transparency, while ensuring that the text is fully aligned with the Amsterdam Treaty Protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality.
In relation to the EFA's scope, Amendment No 87 and related Amendments Nos 88 and 187 are not acceptable, because they reduce the its remit to fields known to have an impact on food safety. A wide remit is necessary in order not to repeat the failure to identify BSE as a risk for humans at an early stage. However, Amendment No 86, which makes it clear that the primary mission of the Authority is food safety, is acceptable. I would like to stress here that the extent of the work of the Authority that is not linked directly or indirectly to food safety was circulated for the financial statement and, in fact, is less that 5%. This brings me to Amendment No 1.
At this time, we are not in a position to accept the proposed amendment to include the word 'safety'. However, given the strong views expressed in Parliament this morning, this is something that we are prepared to reflect on, reconsider and perhaps take on board.
We cannot accept Amendment No 91 for operational reasons. Amendment No 195 is acceptable in principle, subject to changes in order to include the plant health issues in relation to harmful organisms in the Scientific Panel on plant protection products.
The Commission now considers that it should remain responsible for operation of the rapid alert system, with the Authority acting as a member of the network, so we are not able to accept Amendments Nos 15, 89, 94, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163 and 169. Subject to editorial review, we can accept Amendments Nos 160, 164 and 166.
The Commission maintains its original proposal, on the composition of the Management Board of the Authority, which very carefully laid down a balanced share of representatives from the European institutions: four from the Commission, four appointed by Parliament, four from the Council and four representing consumers and industry. Our main objective was, and is, to have a small, functional Board which, through the balance of its membership, can be seen to be independent, yet accountable to the Community institutions. For this reason we cannot accept Amendments Nos 17, 18, 101, 194, 208 and 213. Neither can we accept Amendment No 102, which removes the possibility of alternate Board members, or Amendment No 143, which insists that the Management Board shall meet only in public, since this should left to the Board's own discretion.
We can accept Amendments Nos 103 and 105 on the Board. We can also accept Amendment 106, which enables the chair of the Scientific Committee to participate in Management Board meetings provided that the text reads 'may participate', in order to allow flexibility in the administration of the EFA.
This proposal is the cornerstone of the European food safety strategy, providing the basic principles, requirements, procedures and organisational structures for the future development of food law and, in particular, food safety. As you will have seen from the proposal, the Commission took careful account of the Bowis report from Parliament on the White Paper on food safety. The draft Whitehead report supports the Commission proposal in general, despite the great number of amendments. A significant number are editorial and do not change the overall meaning.
Amendments Nos 219, 221 and 222 in relation to the renewal of the mandates of the president of the Management Board and of the members of the Scientific Committee are not acceptable, because they are unnecessarily restrictive. Amendments Nos 107 and 220 on the open and transparent appointment of the Executive Director by the Management Board with a hearing in Parliament, is acceptable in principle. I must stress the need to be practical and to ensure that the parliamentary process does not cause delays. In addition, we can accept a number of amendments in principle, subject to editorial review and alignment with other articles. We can also accept the part of Amendment No 134 that makes public the list of scientific bodies competent to help the EFA in its work, although without the suggested deletion that requires the Member States to designate these bodies. The rest of Amendment No 134, which deals with EEA/EFTA countries is acceptable in principle, but should come under Article 48 on the participation of third countries. We can accept Amendment No 113 in part, but the Advisory Forum should not be compelled to meet six times a year. Amendment No 118 is not acceptable, as it removes the possibility for the Authority to refuse or modify requests for scientific opinions. Such flexibility is a critical operational requirement of the Authority. Amendment No 13 is unacceptable, since a request for a scientific opinion during the legislative process should be limited to justified cases – new scientific information – for example – in order to avoid repeated requests on the same topic.
Risk managers need to be clearly responsible for taking decisions and risk assessors for assessing the risks. For these reasons, Amendments Nos 21 and 212 are not acceptable. Amendment No 92 is, however, acceptable, if modified to ensure that the authority can make recommendations on management options at the request of the risk managers. Amendment No 93 would be acceptable with the deletion of 'for the measures necessary to be taken'. Amendment No 98 is acceptable, in making clear that the authority can express 'independently' its own conclusions and orientations. The rest of Amendment No 98 is covered by Amendment No 92. Finally, Amendment No 97 is not acceptable, since it would involve the authority in risk management.
Amendments Nos 23, 153 and 157 are not acceptable, because they remove the possibility for the authority to receive fees. The Commission wants to review this within three years of operation, even though if we agree that it is inappropriate for the authority to charge fees at present.
Amendments Nos 121, 122 and 123 are not acceptable. They remove the procedure applied in the event of a divergence between the Authority's scientific opinions and those of a national scientific body, thereby making the Authority the final arbitrator in science. This is a legal impossibility. In any event, the Article 29 procedure is designed to achieve a result through transparency, and the decision is the risk manager's. Subsequent failure by Member States to comply with any measure brought forward by the risk manager or the legislative authority will lead to infringement proceedings. That, in my view, provides the degree of clarity and sureness that Parliament requires.
We can accept Amendments Nos 135 to 142, 144 and 206, which would improve the transparency of the Authority; however, we cannot accept Amendment No 145 for legal reasons. I cannot accept Amendment No 125, which removes the ability of the authority to collect food consumption data. This is a basic requirement, enabling scientists to assess the exposure of consumers to substances through their diet. Amendment No 126 is acceptable in principle, if changed to ensure that all biological risks that may have a direct or indirect impact on the food production chain are covered.
Amendment No 174 is not acceptable, since the crisis unit will not be a permanent structure. Amendment No 24 on the emergencies procedure is not acceptable, as a 'serious risk' is the precondition for emergency measures in all existing Community legislation. However, Amendment No 178 is acceptable in principle, in that it takes into account the fact that food aid is already covered by the term 'food'.
Other amendments are not acceptable, because they are incompatible with existing Community procedures or important legal aspects, or because they are covered by other legal provisions either in this text or in other Community texts. For these reasons, only paragraphs 6a and 6b in Amendment No 154 are acceptable. Amendment No 155 is acceptable in relation to 'the recommendation from the Council', but not in relation to the discharge given to the Management Board. Amendment No 19 and the part of Amendment No 20 containing the word 'authorised' are not acceptable. Amendments Nos 172 and 173 propose involving Parliament in practical crisis management. This is not, in my view, compatible with its institutional role of control and supervision.
Amendments Nos 175, 179, 180, 181 and 182 are not compatible with the comitology procedure and therefore are not acceptable. Neither can we fully accept Amendments Nos 183 and 184. The evaluation commissioned by the Authority cannot address the whole regulation, as it can only be relevant to the Authority. Amendment No 205 is not acceptable, since it is already clear that the authority has right to change its own internal rules. I cannot accept Amendment No 191, as the delay that this may cause would be impractical and may have a detrimental effect on the start date. I cannot accept Amendment No 192, as the Food Authority will not affect the ceiling for heading three of the financial perspective and I draw your attention to the provisional draft budget for 2002, reference PDB 2002, currently under review in Parliament and the Council.
Finally, I would like to address the question of the location of the Authority. Amendments Nos 188, 190, 216, 217, 218 and 223 are acceptable in part. The Commission can agree and accept that the location should be based on the following operational criteria: reasonably rapid and convenient physical access; effective contacts between the authority and the Commission services, especially during food safety crises; cost-effectiveness; and necessary social infrastructure for staff. The other criteria are not acceptable. Neither is the part of these amendments relating to the procedures for choosing the location acceptable. Amendment No 215 is not acceptable.
Before I conclude, I would like to say something very briefly about references made by a number of Members to traditional foods. This is an issue that I regard as being particularly important. It is dear to my own heart as well as to yours, and is addressed in the upcoming hygiene regulations, where specific reference is made to special treatment in relation to traditional foods.
However, on some important issues, the report does not support the Commission's objective in relation to the following: the scope of the Authority; the composition of the Management Board; the rapid alert system; procedures in case of diverging scientific opinion; amendments that could prove detrimental to the Community's ability to negotiate in international fora; and some amendments that deviate from the horizontal nature of this proposal.
So to conclude, I wish once again to thank especially Mr Whitehead for his excellent report and, indeed, for his support. In summary, the Commission cannot accept 100 amendments and they are 1, 4, 11 to 13, 15, 17 to 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32 to 34, 36, 37, 39 to 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50 to 56, 59, 63, 68, 72, 74, 77, 78, 81, 87 to 89, 91, 94, 95, 97, 99, 101, 102, 117, 118, 121 to 123, 125, 133, 143, 145 to 148, 153, 157 to 159, 161 to 163, 169, 172 to 175, 179 to 182, 185, 187, 189, 191 to 194, 202, 205, 208 to 215, 219, 221 and 222.
On the other hand, the Commission can accept fully the following 44 amendments: Amendments Nos 3, 6 to 8, 14, 22, 25, 30, 31, 58, 64 to 66, 71, 79, 86, 90, 103 to 105, 109 to 111, 116, 119, 124, 127 to 130, 131, 135 to 142, 152, 164, 176, 186 and 206. The Commission can accept in part and/or principle 64 amendments, and they are Nos 2, 5, 10, 16, 20, 27, 35, 38, 42, 45, 47, 49, 57, 60 to 62, 67, 69, 70, 73, 75, 76, 80, 82 to 85, 92, 93, 96, 98, 106, 107, 108, 112 to 115, 120, 126, 132, 134, 144, 149, 150, 154 to 156, 160, 161, 170, 177, 178, 183, 184, 188, 190, 195, 207, 216, 217, 218, 220 and 223.
There are a large number of amendments, so without further delay I will address them. Of the 189 amendments in the report of the Environment Committee and the 26 tabled in plenary, the Commission is able to accept well over half fully or in principle. It would be impractical to give you a detailed analysis of each amendment, and so I will focus on the most important issues, particularly those on which the Commission cannot accept the proposed amendment.
The Article 95 legal basis for this proposal, which fully engages Parliament in the codecision procedure won my strong backing during the debates here, has received the full support of the Commission and Council's legal services. Hence the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 4 or 209 changing or expanding the legal basis.
A number of amendments refer to food hygiene. We cannot accept these in this broad, horizontal context, which covers not just hygiene, but also contaminants, additives, materials in contact with food and much more. Similarly, Amendments Nos 59 and 72 are too detailed for a horizontal text. We cannot accept Amendment Nos 11 and 202 on concessions for SMEs, as consumers should enjoy the same protection as regards food from SMEs. Nor can we accept Amendments Nos 26, 40, 50 and 193, which extend the scope of the regulation to food quality. This is not the correct legal instrument and other work is being undertaken in this regard.
The scope of the regulation covers misleading and deceptive practices but not financial fraud between traders. Hence we can only partially accept Amendment No 49. We have kept food safety requirements apart from other consumer interests. Therefore we can accept in principle Amendment No 57 – not in Article 8 on consumer interests, but in Article 12, which covers the food safety requirement.
We cannot accept Amendment No 214 to Article 12, requiring that the calorific value and composition of a food become part of a safety assessment. We do not accept a range of amendments on definitions. Either the horizontal nature of the text is compromised, the proposed change is redundant or inaccurate in relation to the usage of the term in the text, or it is already contained in another definition. We can accept the part of Amendment No 38 introducing distribution, but not the part on placing in circulation. On Amendment No 45 we can accept the change to the definition of primary production, subject to editorial review.
There are a number of amendments which could prove detrimental to the Community's ability to negotiate in Codex Alimentarius or cannot be aligned with international agreements to which the Community is already committed. This is the case particularly with those amendments which attempt to rewrite internationally accepted definitions which we have fought to have accepted, or where changes are not in line with the Commission communication on the precautionary principle, as endorsed by the Council and Parliament. For example, Amendment No 53 attempts to rewrite what exists in WTO agreements on those instances warranting a full risk analysis. Neither can we accept Amendment No 54, which would oblige us to accept other international legitimate factors. There are no such factors at this time. Amendment No 52 is also unacceptable, owing to its impact on our international obligations; it is contrary to WTO rights and obligations. Although we can accept the concept in Amendment No 84, it needs to come under Article 5."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples