Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-206"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.11.2-206"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – In answer to Mr Kindermann's question on how we can ensure that Member States carry out their work properly, first of all it is the primary role of the authorities in the Member States to carry out their functions and to comply with the legislation. That is a responsibility that is imposed primarily on the Member States themselves. In addition to that, there is the function of the FVO in ensuring that this work is done. Their function is to inspect the inspectors. In carrying out that task, they produce reports which are published on the Internet.
In answer to Mr Mulder, that is what happened in this instance. The FVO carried out this work. There were reports on residues in Germany in July 2001 and on controls in the organic sector. These reports, which found serious weaknesses, are already available on the Internet. They have been the subject of discussion in the past. I reiterate to Mr Mulder what I said in answer to Mr Kindermann: the role of the FVO is to inspect the inspectors. It cannot ensure that every single plant is carrying out its work properly and carefully. That is a function for the inspectors employed by the Member States themselves.
The third question related to whether Belgium and Germany have been treated unequally. Discrimination means treating two situations which are the same in a different manner, or treating two different situations in the same way.
In this instance we have two different situations. They are not comparable in scale. Large sections of the pig and poultry industry in Belgium were affected at that time. In Germany an estimated 1% of the organic sector – itself a niche sector which amounts to only 2% of overall production – is concerned in this instance. The German authorities made good progress in tracing and recalling potentially contaminated products. Unfortunately the scale of the dioxin problem in Belgium made tracing much more difficult.
It is important to recall that, because we have been working together over the last two-and-a-half years, we have put in place safety measures to ensure traceability. In this instance the legislation did work. It was not in place to assist those who were in charge of the issues in 1999. There was a significant delay in reporting the problems in Belgium, resulting in the risk of dissemination of the dioxin throughout Belgium and other Member States, in circumstances where the level of contamination, particularly of pork and poultry, was very significant – much more widespread than in the present instance.
The handling of the nitrofen contamination has met with general satisfaction in the Member States. It has been discussed in the standing committee today and will be discussed again on Friday. Only Belgium considered the EU response to the dioxin crisis unsatisfactory in terms of the EU-wide ban. Third countries were also threatening measures against all EU exports, in the absence of proof that the problem was confined to Belgium. Once again, there is a significant difference between the two situations.
My first important decision on assuming office was to lift restrictions on the export of Belgian beef arising from the dioxin crisis. You will appreciate that this was not a comfortable decision for a new Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection with responsibility for food safety on his very first day in office. Nonetheless I took it because I was advised to and the evidence that was put before me supported it. I was satisfied that the easing of restrictions was justified.
I therefore take very seriously any suggestion that the Commission may have treated two Member States differently merely because one is large and one is small. I am very sensitive to these issues, not least because of where I come from. It would be entirely wrong for anyone to think that the Commission's decisions over the last week were based on anything other than the scientific facts and the advice given to me and the standing committee which led us to conclude that our decisions were the right ones.
I insist that my decision was based solely on objective analysis, completely divorced from any consideration of the size of the Member State involved. That is my position."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples