Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-216"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.11.2-216"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – In answer to the first question by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, the situation here is that there are residue monitoring plans in place at both EU and Member State level. These plans include banned substances such as nitrofen. The plans have proven their effectiveness in recent months. The presence of chloramphenicol, for instance and, indeed, nitrofen were identified by this procedure. They are both banned substances that were brought to light by the use of this procedure. Finally, such testing extends to both imported and domestically produced products. A number of Members raised that point.
On the second question, he asks me about the accumulation of case-law and fair trading. People used to a common law system are often anxious that what we are trying to do here is move closer to a codified system which they would not feel totally happy with.
I addressed this issue before when I was here and I said on that occasion that I am sensitive to this point, both because of where I come from and because of my professional background. In our thinking on this and in the legislation put in place, we will seek to ensure that existing legal systems in the European Union are fully taken into account.
Mrs Patrie then asked me about the Green Paper. She may have misunderstood what I said earlier, or I may not have expressed myself very well. In bringing forward the paper at this time I did not intend any discourtesy to the House in not awaiting the opinion, but it was important for us to add further detail to the first proposal and give Parliament an opportunity to produce an even better opinion on our work in this area.
Finally, in response to Mrs Keppelhoff-Wiechert, I agree that there are problems in Germany and that there were delays. One of the federal agencies in Germany knew about this for quite some time and failed to inform the federal authorities. It was not just a question of the Länder knowing and failing to pass on information. A federal agency had that information and failed to pass it on.
There is one other issue I have some small concern about, or maybe it is a serious concern. Very often private laboratories have information on food safety issues. Under confidentiality clauses, they fail to disclose this information to the relevant authorities. We have resolved that to some extent with the food law that we passed here a couple of months ago, but unfortunately the requirement and the legal obligation for private laboratories to disclose relevant information to the public authorities will not become operational until 2005. This is a problem. It is something that has to be addressed by Member States, particularly those with a federal structure, to ensure that information available to private laboratories is made available to those who make public health decisions.
Food and feedingstuffs must be safe, irrespective of their origin. The residue plans from third countries, which are obligatory under EU legislation, are carefully checked to ensure that the necessary controls are in place. The same issue arises with candidate countries. We exercise the same degree of care to ensure compliance.
The second question relates to the Green Paper and whether any sectors are going to be excluded. The financial sector will be excluded and the whole area of food safety legislation will not be covered because it has its own separate legal regime. Parliament will be involved; not only will Parliament's opinion on the original paper be taken into account, but also we await the opinion on this follow-up paper. So Parliament has an opportunity to present an opinion on
papers. The reason we moved ahead was not, I can assure you, through any disrespect to Parliament, but because there was a considerable degree of pressure by the Council and others. Also it was felt that the first paper was not as detailed as people wanted. I felt that it was useful to make the follow-up paper more detailed to assist Parliament in reaching its conclusions and perhaps providing an even more valuable opinion for me to take into account when we come to draft the final framework directive. Obviously Parliament will have a full role, as it normally does.
I was then asked whether I would take into account the better regulation communication by President Prodi last week. I confirm that I will and I also confirm what I said in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market some weeks ago, that I was involved in the work on the sales promotion directive. My services and I support that. That piece of legislation is compatible with this communication and with our general plans on unfair trading practices.
Mrs McCarthy is concerned that we are moving very fast. That is probably true. However, it is intended to consult fully with stakeholders. As I said, there will also be provision for stakeholders on all sides to have a role in the operation of the legislation when it becomes operational.
Mr Staes goes back to the point about Belgium and unequal treatment. I can only repeat what I said earlier. Neither I nor my services were motivated by any considerations of the size of the Member State.
To Mrs Oomen-Ruijten I can say that we in the European Union have only known about this since 24 May, although private laboratories in Germany have known since January. We are very unhappy that it took so long to notify the federal authorities. As I said earlier, this point is being taken up with the federal authorities. This is an issue of some concern and I know it is a concern in the countries with a federal structure, where sometimes there is perhaps not the same speed of communication between regions or Länder and the federal authorities. But I must insist that at European Union level our interlocutor is the federal government and therefore the institutions of the European Union cannot be mollified by responses from Member States with a federal structure that really there is nothing they can do because the problem resides in their Länder or regions. That is not a response that we at European Union level can accept.
As regards third countries, I can only repeat what I said earlier in response to Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf. They are treated in an equivalent manner to Member States.
Mr Whitehead then asked if I would come back again when I have more information. I am always happy to come back to Parliament with up-to-date information on any issue, particularly an issue of such importance as this."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples