Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-05-Speech-2-037"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991005.3.2-037"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, the Commission’s statement on food safety comes not a moment too soon. We have been pondering the Green Paper for one and a half years now. The Green Paper itself has been in existence for more than two and a half years and, in fact, nothing more has been done in the meantime. The BSE crisis and now also the events of the last few months have demonstrated that food safety must be made a priority, but also that such things are only given priority when there are crises. We are banking on the fact that this is now going to change. Mr President of the Commission, the fact that it was you that provided the introduction to today’s debate gives us cause for hope.
Your statement was certainly full of good intentions but I only heard a little about the actual measures that are to be taken. That is why there are some questions I still want to ask and which I would be pleased to hear answered.
Firstly there is the matter of the agency for food safety. It seems that an agency of this kind is to be something of a deus ex machina, but still we must ask the question: what exactly is its role to be? What would the division of labour be between the proposed agency and the existing one in Dublin? Would it be adequately staffed from the beginning? What would its relationship with the national services and agencies be? Last, but by no means least, to whom would this agency be accountable?
My second point concerns the internal market. It must now be obvious to everyone that public health must take precedence over economic interests and those of the internal market. Nevertheless, the internal market is an established fact. What will the Commission do to stop Member States introducing protectionist measures under the pretext of public health? Suspicions on that score are rife. I would also refer you to the intervention made by Mr Whitehead.
My third point is prompted by the dioxin crisis. The Commission compelled Belgium to carry out PCB testing but there is no European PCB standard. It is an either/or situation: either there is a public health problem or there is not. If there is then the whole of Europe is affected, which means that Europe-wide measures must be taken and the same yardstick must be used throughout the EU. Hence, my question: will the Commission produce a European PCB standard, and if so, when? I have submitted a question in writing on this but I am sorry to say that I have received no response as yet.
I also have a question about the distribution of competences. I see there are no less than four Commissioners whose competences relate to food safety. My question is as follows: how are these responsibilities to be coordinated? Has a system of cooperation been agreed? Who in the Commission is to have the final word?
Then, of course there is the international dimension. The Green Paper is long behind us and we have the White Paper to come. We have prohibitive regulations in relation to hormones in meat and our own regulations as regards genetically-modified organisms, but the question is to what extent the European Union will continue to be able to choose its own policies, and how far the Commission will be able to go in demanding international recognition for the right to autonomy and the right to maintain EU authority over food safety and political choices relating to food policy. These are questions which I would be pleased to receive an answer to. I lend my support to the comments some of my colleagues have made about the scandalous absence of the Council from this debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples