Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-15-Speech-3-222"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991215.9.3-222"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – May I commence by extending my regret to all of you for not being here at the commencement of this debate. I know how important it is and I had had every intention of being here. I had booked a flight this morning, but due to the weather conditions in Brussels that flight was unfortunately cancelled and indeed the later flight I was on was also delayed. Please accept my apologies for being late and having to have my statement on this issue read to you by my colleague, Mr Monti.
Mr Stevenson also raises the question of the position of Germany. My understanding is that this will be discussed in the German Parliament on 17 December. There is every expectation that the parliament will come to the conclusion that the embargo in Germany should also be lifted.
To come to some of the issues that were raised by Mrs Roth-Behrendt and Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, particularly with reference to the tests that are to be undertaken: you will remember that these were among the issues raised by the French authorities and addressed in the protocol of understanding. I said in my hearing last September that it was my intention to establish a proper EU-wide testing system for BSE to determine the levels of infectivity in various Member States. It is still my intention to do that. Progress has been made. A working party has been established in my directorate-general, working in association with Member States, to come up with the procedures necessary to put this provision into place. It is my intention to proceed with that.
Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf and others also mentioned the necessity of putting into place labelling systems and, in particular, mandatory labelling systems. We are going to discuss this later in the evening. Let me just say at this stage that labelling is an issue that is focused on consumer information and consumer choice. It is not a public health issue. We must focus on the public health aspect of this. That is why, in my belief, the test aspect of it is important and must be distinguished from the need for labelling.
Others asked questions in relation to the actual procedures in the Court; how quickly they can begin and when we can expect to get a result. Like all court procedures anywhere in the world they move at their own pace because it is absolutely essential that all parties put their arguments on paper. In litigation before the European Court of Justice not only do the proceedings take place between the immediate parties – in this instance, the Commission and France – but also Member States are perfectly entitled to intervene in those proceedings: the UK or indeed any other Member State. The consequence of that would be that further documents would have to be drafted whereby those Member States set out their position. All of that has to be filed in the Court, it has to be translated. All of this takes time.
The question has been raised whether there are any fast-track procedures that can be applied in this instance. There is an interim measure procedure and the criteria that are laid down for the application of interim measures are quite strict and quite narrow.
I have asked the Legal Service in the Commission to advise me whether the circumstances of this particular case fall within those narrow criteria. In my view this will be, to some extent, an uphill battle but nonetheless I intend to seek advice and if I am advised that it is an appropriate way forward it will be my intention to do that. In the event that the embargo remains in place, and the proceedings are launched next week, it will, of course, require the launching of proceedings before we make any decision on interim measures. Equally it will be necessary for me and for the Legal Service to determine the appropriate response, having regard to the response of the French authorities to the reasoned opinion that was agreed to be sent yesterday because that in essence is a legal document setting out the legal position and I expect that the response will be in similar terms. No final decision can be made on the issue of whether interim measures can be sought until those papers have been filed.
There is one other, very rare procedure, which is the accelerated procedure. I have made inquiries as to whether this procedure is available. This is a procedure whereby the Commission could apply to the Court to have the case heard in an accelerated manner – or fast-track manner. It requires once again certain criteria to be present. It would also require the abandonment of the Commission's right for instance to file certain documents at certain crucial stages of the case. I have to make a judgement on whether it is worthwhile seeking to fall within those criteria if we can and, if so, whether it is a good balance to seek an early oral proceeding or whether it is better to have all the arguments on paper before the Court. That is a judgement call that I will make after I have read the reply to the reasoned opinion that has been sent to the French authorities. However, I should say that if I feel it is the appropriate way forward, that is the course of action that I propose to adopt.
Let me just go back to the issue of compulsory labelling and traceability that was mentioned earlier by one of the Members. The DBES scheme itself provides for traceability. It provides by implication for labelling. The scheme was not devoid of this requirement and therefore to approach this debate on the basis that the DBES did not require these issues to be put in place would be misleading, because it would be unfair both to the scientists who determined what was necessary to make sure that the exportation of UK beef was sound and safe and it would also be unfair to the Commission in the approach that has been adopted so far. This scheme provides for traceability and consequently for a form of labelling.
I was also asked by a number of speakers about the progress of the Food Safety Agency and the White Paper on Food Safety. A number of Members said, and I agree, that this appears to be the way forward in relation to these issues. I think most of you will agree that to have a situation where scientists are disagreeing with one another on issues so important as food safety is a very unsatisfactory situation. It is unsatisfactory from a public health point of view but it is also unsatisfactory from the point of view of consumer confidence. This is an entirely undesirable situation.
From the beginning of this Commission you will remember that President Prodi made this an issue that he regarded as being of the foremost importance. Before any of the rest of us were sworn in he made this a clear priority. He asked me to deal with this. We have been working on this in my DG since then. The White Paper has been drafted, it has been in interdepartmental consultation in the Commission and it is now just about to be presented to my colleagues in the College of Commissioners. I expect that to happen on 12 January. That White Paper includes many of the issues that I have raised here and in the Environment Committee on a number of occasions but it also includes a chapter on the issue of a food safety authority.
Let me now deal with the many important questions you have raised on this issue. First of all Mr Stevenson and a number of others have raised the question about the delay in instituting the proceedings that were launched against France on 16 November. That was the formal notice, the more factual part of the proceedings, and then yesterday the reasoned opinion was agreed by Parliament to be sent to France with a response time of five days.
I believe that in the establishment of a food safety authority it will be necessary to determine what competences it has. It will obviously have a competence in the area of a risk assessment and in assessing that risk it will be necessary for the scientists employed in this agency not only to rely on their own opinions and advice, but also to liaise with the scientists in Member States, because an agency such as this – agency or authority or whatever – will have to be not only independent but will also have to liaise with scientists in Member States. It cannot be established in such a way that its work is going to be in the form of a series of dictates issued from Brussels as to what the appropriate way forward is.
Such an agency will not have the confidence of Member States and consumers unless there is a broad degree of consultation between scientists in the European Union. But once that consultation process has taken place and once the scientists in the Member States and in the agency have come to a conclusion on the appropriate way forward in any given situation, particularly with regard to a food scare, the opinion of the agency should stand, should be respected, should be followed and should not be challenged. Once the consultation process has taken place there should be no need for such a challenge. It is in those circumstances that the authority of such an agency will permeate throughout the European Union and will not only be a good authority in the area of safety and public health but will also provide a degree of consumer confidence that I believe is absolutely essential and will be a bedrock in the way forward.
I might refer just very briefly to the other issue that we have been talking about a moment ago – courts. The hierarchical system that exists in the court procedures are such that you could not imagine for a moment a court of appeal in any one of the Member States seeking the opinion of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg under an Article 177 reference and then, having got the opinion, not liking it and saying "we will not apply it". It is an unthinkable proposition. Such a situation does not exist in the scientific world.
Let me say this. I am firmly convinced that the line I followed in attempting to resolve this in the manner in which I did was the correct way to proceed. I do not have any doubts about that whatsoever. There are many reasons for this that I have rehearsed here in the committees of Parliament before. A negotiated settlement that is agreed between the parties is always a better settlement than the one that comes about as a result of court proceedings. However, the charge has been made that by adopting that course of action a delay has occurred in the institution of proceedings and that by implication the court hearing will take place later than would otherwise have happened. That is not correct. The true position is that France's position on this situation was not made clear until 1 October. At that time I was just short of two weeks in office. That was the first opportunity the Commission, or rather I, had to give serious consideration to France's response to this issue.
I attempted to deal with this in the manner I believed appropriate. For instance, having regard to the fact that I have responsibility for consumer protection, public health and food safety, my first reaction was to see if there was anything in this allegation. Was any evidence available to the French authorities which should be examined at Commission level by the scientists in the Scientific Steering Committee? You will remember that I asked the French authorities if they would send that evidence to the Scientific Steering Committee for further evaluation and to see if there was anything new. They did that and the Scientific Steering Committee also asked the UK authorities if they would forward such up-to-date information as they had. They also complied with that request.
This gave the SSC an opportunity to fully review all the evidence in this unfortunate situation. The result of that was they came up with the unanimous decision that we are all aware of.
With regard to my own responsibilities that I have just identified, I felt that this was an important first step for me to take in this issue.
The advice that I got, which I was happy to act upon, was that the beef exported from the UK under the DBES scheme was as safe as any other beef in the European Union. Further discussions took place following that. My belief is that the further discussions and the protocol of understanding that was reached between all parties and experts involved give further assurance to consumers in the European Union – and they are not just French – that the beef exported under the DBES scheme is as safe as any beef in the European Union. That also was a valuable exercise.
To address the question of whether there was a delay or whether the proceedings will ultimately come to court later than they would otherwise have done in the formal notice proceeding, the first letter sent by the Commission normally requires a response within a period of two months. In this instance that was shortened to two weeks, extended by a further week at the request of the French authorities.
The reasoned opinion, when that is sent out two months after the formal notice procedure, normally also gives a period of two months in which to reply. These periods have been shortened by the procedure that has been adopted by the Commission. In many respects we have therefore caught up and are no later in the proceedings than we would have been in normal proceedings. So not only do I believe that we adopted the right course of action with the good results that came from that, but I also firmly believe that we are not in any delay as a result of taking that particular course of action."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples