Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-14-Speech-2-343"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020514.14.2-343"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I am delighted to respond to the debate this evening and give my conclusions on the three reports concerning the food hygiene package.
The second part of Amendment Nos 36 and 104 would require food businesses to keep documentation on the HACCP system for an extensive period of time. This is not acceptable, as the measures we propose with regard to documentation for small businesses must be realistic.
Still on HACCP, this system is the full responsibility of the food business operators. Amendment No 108 is therefore not acceptable.
Flexibility in the context of food hygiene is an issue with which I am greatly concerned. Throughout the European Union, there are longstanding cultural traditions with regard to food and food preparation and I am keen to protect and encourage this and have sought to ensure this particular provision was included in this legislation.
The Commission’s proposal therefore contains a procedure to ensure sufficient flexibility to ensure that these traditions are preserved. I welcome the general acceptance of this. I will try to take into account, as far as possible, the suggestions in Amendments Nos 31 and 32, making editorial amendments where needed.
Our proposal provides for the establishment of guides of good practice – for use by food businesses to assist the achievement of the very highest level of food hygiene. I welcome the amendments that aim to clarify the procedures on how such guides should be established, and those that underscore that such guides should be voluntary instruments. But I must reject Amendments Nos 47 and 48, as these would impose unnecessary obligations on food businesses or on the Commission.
On the registration of food business, I am happy to take into account the suggestions for flexibility regarding the registration procedure. But on the linked question of traceability, I take the view that this is fully covered under Regulation 178/2002. Amendment No 53 must therefore be rejected.
Amendment No 13, on support to developing countries, I find most interesting. This is an important matter – and one that calls for profound reflection. While I must reject this amendment – please note that it is a matter to which I intend to return.
I must also reject Amendments Nos 69, 71, 76, 77, 83, 89, 92, 93, 95, 101 and 105 because these may have a negative impact on small businesses. Similarly, Amendments Nos 5 and 14, the second part of 16, 53, 55, and 107 since these are already adequately covered in other parts of Community law, and Amendment No 39 since this is already dealt with by Amendment No 6.
I am also keen on keeping a strict separation between the duties of food business operators and the competent authorities. Amendment No 55 is not in line with that objective and must therefore be rejected.
The other amendments are either wholly or partly acceptable, subject to editorial amendment.
To get to where we are today has required a massive input from Members of this House. First, may I offer my sincere thanks to all those Members who have worked so tirelessly to drive this dossier forward – in particular Mr Schnellhardt and Mr Kindermann and the Members of the environment and other committees, who have made such valuable contributions.
I would now like to turn to Mr Schnellhardt’s report on the proposal on the hygiene of food of animal origin.
One issue that stands out above all others is that of game meat. It would appear that our proposal has ruffled a few feathers! I can assure this house that our objective in making the proposal was to design pragmatic rules and to preserve traditions in the Member States, such as the delivery of small quantities of game meat by the hunter to the consumer or local retail trade.
It was certainly not our intention to interfere with private consumption. I am grateful for the effort made to strike the right balance and I believe that you have broadly succeeded.
In brief, I am ready to accept the following amendments on game: they are Amendments Nos 90, 92, 94 to 97, 129, 13 and the first part of 130.
Amendment No 91, however, overlaps with Regulation 178/2002 and must therefore be rejected. I must also reject Amendments Nos 85 in part and 132 since they are not compatible with other amendments that I can accept.
I must further reject the following amendments either because of a possible negative impact on small businesses or because of overlap with other parts of Community law. They are Amendments Nos 17, 33, 35 first part, 38, 44, 45 first part, 55, 58, 65, 69, 91, 101, 116.
I must also reject Amendment No 8 because it mixes obligations to be respected by food business operators with those of the competent authorities; Amendment No 10 in part because it widens too much the scope of the proposal with regard to special guarantees for salmonella in meat, as well as the last part of Amendment No 13 since this would compromise the right of initiative of the Commission.
The other amendments are either wholly or partly acceptable, subject to editorial amendment.
Finally, I turn to Mr Kindermann’s report on the proposal dealing with animal health issues as a consequence of the consolidation of the rules on food hygiene.
I am pleased to note that there is strong support for the proposal, with only a small number of amendments. There are, however, six amendments that I cannot accept: Amendment No 4, in relation to BSE, as there is already extensive legislation laid down to cater for this BSE requirement and it is neither necessary nor good legal practice to repeat this.
Nearly two years have passed since these proposals were adopted. Slow progress, some might say. But this would ignore not only the importance of this dossier, but also the simultaneous work this House has undertaken on other related initiatives – in particular the proposal for a General Food Law and for establishing the European Food Safety Authority, now enacted by Regulation 178/2002.
Amendment No 5, on traceability, as this is already covered by Article 3(2) (a) and is already included in animal health legislation. I could, accept the amendment if the term "human health" was replaced by “animal health” as foot and mouth disease is not a risk to humans.
Amendments Nos 8 and 9 concern infringements and publication of results. This is a matter of subsidiarity and therefore should fall to each individual Member State. In addition, there are no public health concerns, and it is not possible to draw up an exhaustive list of animal health infringements. To try to do so would inevitably lead to omissions. If necessary, this should be done in a horizontal fashion. However, I would encourage Member States to aim for the level of transparency highlighted in these amendments in their national implementing provisions.
I have major concerns with Amendment No 12 on derogations for developing countries. If rules are stricter than those laid down by the OIE, then these must be to ensure that the Community animal health situation is not jeopardised. To allow more lenient rules for developing countries would clearly be self-defeating. I therefore cannot agree to Amendment No 12.
On Amendment No 16, the Early Warning System was set up for specific public health concerns, not for the purpose foreseen by this amendment. In such cases, the Commission would usually propose a draft decision to Member States to suspend importation of the relevant animal products. Additionally, Member States' veterinary services would be warned immediately with detailed information from the Commission of any risk consignments and therefore inclusion in the Early Warning System is unnecessary.
Apart from these six amendments, there are two amendments that I can only accept in part. First, on Amendment No 7 in relation to unannounced inspection and penalties, I agree that there should be provision for unannounced official controls, but the proposed amendment appears to limit these controls to unannounced inspections only. Alternative wording to allow for some to be unannounced would be sufficient.
Second, on Amendment No 11 concerning assistance and notification of results, the first sentence repeats paragraph 1 of this Article and should therefore be deleted. The other amendments are either wholly or partly acceptable subject to editorial amendment.
Let me now comment in detail on the amendments to these three reports. As far as the Schnellhardt report on the hygiene of foodstuffs is concerned, the Commission can wholly or partly accept the following amendments subject to editorial changes: Nos 1 to 4, 6, 7, 9 to 12, 15 to 27, 31 to 34, 36, 40 to 46, 49 to 52, 54, 56, 57, 60 to 66, 68, 70, 72 to 75, 78 to 82, 84 to 88, 90, 91, 94, 96 to 100, 102, 103 and 106. The Commission is unable to accept the following amendments: Nos 5, 8, 13, 14, 28 to 30, 35, 37 to 39, 47, 48, 53, 55, 58, 59, 67, 69, 71, 76, 77, 83, 89, 92, 93, 95, 101, 104, 105, 107 and 108.
As regards the Schnellhardt report on specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, the Commission can wholly or partly accept the following amendments subject to editorial change: Nos 1 to 7, 9 to 16, 18 to 32, 34 to 37, 39 to 43, 45 to 54, 56, 57, 59 to 64, 66 to 68, 70 to 90, 92 to 100, 102 to 115, 117 to 131, 133 and 134. The Commission is, however, unable to accept the following amendments: Nos 8, 17, 33, 38, 44, 55, 58, 65, 69, 91, 101, 116 and 132.
As regards the Kindermann report, the Commission can wholly or partly accept the following amendments subject to editorial change: Nos 1 to 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 to 15 and 17. The Commission is, however, unable to accept the following amendments: Nos 4, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 16.
I also hope that Members will understand the reasoning behind the decisions to reject or amend some of the amendments put forward by the committees.
A vast number of amendments have been discussed in the Committee on the Environment and other committees. But it is not just the quantity of your work for which I am grateful – but also, and especially, the quality of the results, which, in my view, is excellent.
Finally, may I repeat my sincere thanks to all those who have participated in this Herculean task. The food hygiene package marks another important step in our overhaul of food legislation in pursuit of our objective to ensure that European consumers have access to the safest possible food supply in the world.
The majority of the proposed amendments seek to improve the proposals from an editorial and technical point of view. There are also a large number of amendments, which align our proposals with the newly adopted Regulation 178/2002. I welcome these amendments, which represent important and rational suggestions to improve our texts.
If I may, I will start with the first of Mr Schnellhardt’s reports – on the horizontal measures covering the whole of the food sector.
I must first mention the recurring question of comitology. I welcome the acceptance that the Commission can adopt implementing measures under comitology procedures. However, I am disappointed that Amendment No 30 seeks to remove the mandate to the Commission to grant derogations from the annexes of the regulation. Such a mandate already exits and I see no reason why this should not continue and, thus, cannot accept Amendment No 30. Perhaps Members of the House will be aware of my views on comitology which is important as a form of secondary legislation to get measures through into law in a short space of time and Parliament always has the "droit de regard" which it can exercise. If it did exercise it in any piece of legislation that I was responsible for, I would take full account of that. To that extent I am often disappointed at Parliament's view in relation to the comitology procedure even though it may indeed need some amendment, reform and modernisation.
The annexes to the regulation are technical and should therefore be adaptable using the comitology procedure. I therefore cannot accept Amendments Nos 28, 29, 58 and 59.
The HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) system has already provoked strong feelings. A number of amendments aim to implement this system at farm level. This is overly ambitious – and I must therefore reject Amendment No 8, the first part of Amendment No 9, and Amendments Nos 35, 37, 38 and 67."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples