Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-02-04-Speech-3-372"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090204.20.3-372"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I have a number of points to make in relation to this issue and of course I would disagree slightly with Mrs McGuinness in relation to ‘this is not about Ireland’. Of course, this is about Ireland. This is the most recent scandal in relation to food risks.
The protection of human health has to be the primary concern on this issue and what we are talking about here is the implementation of a 1996 directive. Indeed, unfortunately, Ireland was one of those Member States which had to be forced by threats of legal action to actually implement this directive, five years later, in 2001. Of course, the process of implementing it is still, it would appear, under way, and the inspection procedures for ensuring that it is being complied with appear to be quite weak. From what I understand from what I have read about it, one of the surprising things is the lack of information about what precisely occurred in this particular instance with regard to the contamination of pork. It would appear that the factory concerned which produced the feed had not inspected for some time.
I also have to say – and I am sure the Government would be surprised to hear me say this – I do believe they took the right decision in clamping down immediately on the distribution of pork and indeed the withdrawal of pork from the shop shelves. Of course it hurt many innocent and compliant producers and butchers and so on: 90% or more of products were not contaminated at all. The factory concerned was only supplying something like 10 outlets, so it was a big move to make, but it was the right move to make. The most important thing is that we try and ensure that the public and the consumer can be certain that the food they are buying in the supermarkets, in their local corner shops is safe to eat. If we do not take immediate and drastic steps to guarantee that, then I think we are failing in our responsibility.
I have two questions for the Commissioner. One is, as I say, we are talking about the implementation here of the 1996 directive. Is there not an argument now for that directive to be reviewed? Are the standards that were set in that directive not now adequate or inadequate? Should we not be looking more seriously at taking these PCBs out of circulation much more quickly than is envisaged, particularly because of the late way in which many Member States actually implemented the directive?
My other question relates to the management plan which the Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland is belatedly putting in place in 2008 where it talks about the code of practice, which the plan also includes, for the in-use management of PCBs and PCB containing equipment. What I want to know is whether a code of practice is in fact compliant with the directive. Should we not be looking for a more stringent application of the rules in terms of the management of PCBs? I am not in favour of charging everybody who breaks a rule here and there, but I do think that, where food safety is concerned, there should be criminal sanctions for those who carelessly abuse their position."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples