Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-18-Speech-2-185"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000118.7.2-185"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"In relation to the makeup of the authority: first of all it will employ in-house scientists who will liaise with and consult with scientists who are experts in the particular field that is being considered at any particular time. In addition to that, the food safety authority will have a board. You will notice in the White Paper that we have not been specific about the makeup of that board. This is an issue which I expect will be discussed between Parliament and the Commission over the next few weeks and months.
In relation to Mrs Lynne's question on interim payments: that is a matter that might very well be addressed by Parliament as it relates to budget issues. Mrs Myller then asked me about the location of the Authority. No decision has been taken in relation to that other than to say that it is more likely that the Authority will be located centrally rather than on the periphery. I recognise that the FEO is located in Dublin and, although I come from that part of the world myself, I have to accept that it is not the centre of Europe! But the FVO is in quite a different situation from the Food Safety Authority. The FVO is made up of independent scientists and vets and so on who travel from some location where there is an airport – quite clearly we have an airport in Dublin.
The Food Safety Authority's situation is quite different. It has to be close to the Commission because of the need for interaction between the scientists involved in the Food Safety Authority and those of us who are involved in the initiation of legislation. An important part of the communication between the two institutions will obviously be to ensure that those of us who are involved in the drafting of legislation understand clearly and perfectly what it is the scientists mean, what problems they have identified, what legislation is necessary to deal with the issues they raise. Equally, the scientists will wish to have some input into the legal process or the policy-making process or the law-drafting process, to ensure that the legislation meets the ills that they have identified.
It seems to me desirable for an authority of this type to be centrally located. Scientists will be employed in-house but it will also be necessary to liaise with scientists on a consultative basis and, in those circumstances, as scientists will have to travel, it is probably better that they move to a central location, once again where the parliamentary structures and the Commission and Council are based. That is my judgement at the moment. It may be a matter for discussion here and elsewhere and I will listen to any suggestions that are made but my preliminary conclusion is that this Authority should be located centrally rather than on the periphery.
I envisage that the board's membership will be made up from stakeholders or representatives of stakeholders. Its function will have to be set out in detail in the proposal I will bring to the Commission in September. We have not done that yet but it will be done in September. I do not expect that the board will have any function in directing the scientists how to do their work. That would erode the independence of the scientific advice. But it would have an overall remit, particularly, for instance, in requesting the authority to investigate particular areas requiring research.
Mr Florenz asks whether Parliament will have a say in that. That is an issue for consideration and discussion. There may be a number of views on that. Some may take the view that it would be inappropriate for Parliament or Members of Parliament – or indeed Parliament nominees – to be members of the board. Others may take the view that it would be a valuable exercise if Parliament, through nominees or even MEPs themselves, were able to have an opportunity to discuss what issues should be investigated. It is an issue for consideration but it has not been ruled out.
Mr Florenz also raised the question of anonymity. I am happy that he raised it because it is particularly important for this authority to have a high profile. It must be visible. It must be known. Consumers in the European Union must know of the existence of the food authority. The CEO of the authority would be somebody who typically would be known, who might appear regularly on television talking about issues relating to food, particularly in relation to the good news stories surrounding food in relation to nutrition, diet and such issues, so that if another food crisis comes along consumers will be aware of the existence of the authority. They will be aware that they have heard from the authority before under other circumstances and hopefully will have some bedrock of confidence already built up in the pronouncements from the authority. It is fundamentally essential therefore that the authority is not anonymous. It must be visible. I will do everything I can to promote that high profile role for the authority.
Mrs Lynne asks whether the authority will have sufficient teeth. I suspect that the question is focused on the issue of where the competence of the authority begins and ends and where the competence and authority of food safety agencies in Member States begin and end. There would have to be an interaction at scientific level. Quite clearly it is undesirable to have situations develop whereby scientists working for, or advising, the food safety authority at Community level may be in disagreement with some scientific opinion at Member State level. That is an undesirable situation, we do not want that situation in the future.
There are a number of things that undermine consumer confidence – lack of information is one. But information which includes a fundamental disagreement between scientists on core issues relating to food safety is also an issue of serious concern. We must attempt to avoid that and establish the structures so as to ensure that there is a proper dissemination of information between scientists, that there is full consultation and discussion and that the authority at Community level has the opportunity and is mandated to seek the advice and opinion of independent scientists in all Member States and indeed maybe even beyond, where experts are to be found elsewhere.
Over time, as I said a moment ago, not only will the profile of the authority be raised but its expertise, its moral authority will be increased and enhanced over a period of time so that its views are accepted and not challenged.
This situation can be achieved over a period of time. You cannot legislate for consumer confidence. It is something that is earned over a period of time. However, the Commission will have the possibility of seeing that the opinions of the Authority on scientific matters are enforced by way of passing legislation which is the function of the Commission, Parliament and Council. I realise that this is a somewhat time-consuming exercise but, nonetheless, the establishment of legislation arising out of the opinions of the Authority is – I believe – the way forward. Any failure to comply with legislation is a matter that can be dealt with in the courts in the normal way. One of the issues that we may have to address over time is the question of the speed of response in such circumstance. I hope to see if something can be put in place to get us a faster response from the court process.
In relation to grants and subsidies: yes, consideration has been given to that issue. It will require the advice of legal services and that will be sought, particularly bearing in mind that it may provide a speedy response to a failure to comply with Community law pending a court ruling."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples