Proposition 50K1107

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 février 2000 relative à la création de l'Agence fédérale pour la Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 19, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

food inspection outline law civil service veterinary inspection public health

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 28, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, as an introduction, I refer to the creation of this second bill, which is in fact part of the planned project, in particular the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. I remind you that the government, when joined her, had promised the establishment of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. It was not a new idea, as the idea of the agency had already been prepared during the previous legislature. In fact, on 26 June 1998, the then government made the principle decision to evolve towards an integrated chain approach. A few months earlier, PriceWaterhouseCoopers was asked to conduct an audit of the inspection services and prepare a restructuring. This task was completed in January 1999. During that month, our group submitted a bill for the establishment of such an agency.

The government agreement of July 1999 devotes a whole chapter to the crisis in the food sector, as well as to the protection of food security. I quote two sentences: “The government opts for a unity structure without separation from policy preparation and policy execution tasks. The establishment of the Agency shall be completed by the end of 1999.”

Mrs. Minister, I think you will agree with me that the provision in the government agreement that there will be no separation between policy preparation and policy implementation has very quickly been wiped out. In the draft law, as it was submitted in November 1999, only the restructuring of the control and supervision powers remains. The draft law therefore implicitly assumed a separation between policy preparation and policy implementation. During the discussion of the design in the Chamber, this separation was confirmed. Also the decisions of the Dioxin Commission advocate for the separation of both. The fate of this passage from the government agreement was immediately sealed.

The Government Declaration also states — I have already referred to it — that the establishment of this agency will be completed before the end of 1999. I think the timing has already been postponed. I could refer to custom statements, after your first statement. I quote your statement from Knack, a few months after entering the government: “It will be there on January 1. Before it will be at cross-speed, we will be half a year further, though it will not yet work flawlessly in all its parts." It took until 5 November 1999 before the government submitted a bill. Three months later, on 18 February 2000, this bill was approved and published in the Belgian Staatsblad.

In the note to the Council of Ministers of 20 July, it was decided to rapidly integrate the central services from January 2001 and the external services from mid-2001. Mrs. Minister, you will have to admit that these deadlines are in sharp contrast to your initial statements that part of the project had to be completed by 1999.

I return to the Basic Law, which was submitted on 5 November and was approved after substantially strong discussions. The CVP pointed out four points of criticism: the control services remained too fragmented; there was a lack of external control — so far nothing has been noticed of this control —; budgetary neutrality and problematic external communication were another point of criticism. Through amendments, we have tried to remove these findings and deliver better legislative work. This has not succeeded.

What is the current situation? The existing control services active in the food chain do not only do public health checks. They also carry out other inspection tasks, including animal health — including swine fever and MCD virus — technical standards, quality standards and subsidies. The current services are not integrated – they are active in a certain link of the food chain – but they are versatile because they carry out different government tasks. However, everyone is convinced that the alignment between the different links was and is insufficient. This alignment can be improved provided that all services are put under one roof.

The law on the agency has transformed this into the cutting and replicating of all the services involved. The purpose of the Agency is to safeguard the safety of the food chain and the quality of food. To this end, the Agency shall be responsible for the development, implementation and control of measures relating to the analysis and control of risks that may harm the health of consumers. The powers of the Agency are related to the importance of health. A new fragmentation was the result. From now on, the Agency will inspect all the links in the food chain. However, the controls would only cover the safety of the consumer. All other controls would be rejected. The agency, as originally proposed by the government, was integrated but no longer versatile. In other words, the existing situation would be reversed. This option would open up the services as it were: one part of the services would be grouped in the Agency and the other part would be spread across the various public services and policy levels. The CVP has strongly criticized this fragmentation. At that time, however, we had no hearing. You can read the reports on this.

The present draft law of 20 July 2000 amending the law of 4 February 2000 sets this misleun right.

We will no longer look at it from the public health perspective, but also want to give this agency responsibility in terms of animal health, control of European premiums and pricing. This is a change of course that we fully support because we had already anticipated them at the first discussion.

I use this opportunity, Mrs. Minister, to return to some points of criticism that we have on the first draft. Through the decisions taken from the so-called Meat Fraud Commission, we have been able to clearly demonstrate that external control is more than necessary. I think the work of this committee has shown this very clearly. We know very little about external control, one of its shortcomings. I would like to take this opportunity to point you to this. Are they preparing for this? Who will carry out the external control of the Agency? How do we organize it? I think it is very important to know before the agency becomes operational.

I have repeatedly expressed my regret about budget neutrality. It is unfortunate that no more money is being spent on food security. We are convinced that more money will be needed. I hope that the recent change in the financing of the IVK will be a precursor.

I would like to return to the external control. I can give the answer myself. You may want to wait for the teachings of Europe. I understand that and I think that it may be a reason for the external control not yet definitively pouring into a certain form. However, I think we can take the lead in this. From the moment the agency is operational, we need to know how we organize it.

Another point of criticism is that one does not know how the external communication will be organized and how the related scientific support will be provided. You know that in our proposal we have advocated for an independent body that should be separate from audit and inspection services and which should be supported by scientists. You know, as I do, how difficult it is to communicate about food crises when wrong messages are sent to the world and how difficult it is to correct them. If this is not supported by scientists, I think that it is sometimes an unattainable matter for the government as well.

I would like to refer to unhealthy messages, such as the report of Mr Hens and Mr Van Laerebeke on the effects of the dioxin crisis. It was extensive in the media and the people had to learn to live with it. The public could not estimate who gave the correct information. Professor Bernard’s report gave a different sound. This makes it even more difficult for people to estimate things correctly. Therefore, it is very important that work is done of this communication. If we can believe Mr Beernaert, it is not an easy task and at the moment there is not yet a suitable person who can take on this communication.

So I conclude that we have lost a lot of time and that the announced timing has already been largely exceeded.

The last point is the uncertainty about the powers of the Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. Apparently, after one and a half years, it is still impossible to clearly define what powers the Agency will be given. We have repeatedly accused this. Several weeks ago, Mr. Beernaert stated during a television interview that even after the regionalization of Agriculture, the fight against, among other things, mouth and neck disease remains a federal competence. The fight against animal diseases that have no impact on human health, such as mouth disease and swine fever, will therefore remain a federal matter, according to the Federal Agency.

In the Financial Economic Period of 6 March 2001, however, Mr Vankrunckelsven assumes that the fight against mouth and neck disease after regionalization becomes a regional matter. Ms. Van de Casteele was somewhat more cautious in the public health committee when discussing the draft, citing, among other things, the example of dog and cat diseases. She wondered to what extent it would become a regional matter. I do not think that Flanders is waiting for a regionalization, if that is the only thing that becomes regional.

You, Mrs. Minister, and Minister Gabriëls are always very clear in this, but after the interpretation of the answer of the Prime Minister to the question of Mr. Tant on this matter in the committee for domestic affairs, the affairs again become unclear. The Prime Minister could not be present, but let the answer be formulated by Minister Gabriel. In that answer I read literally: "At the moment we cannot give a clear answer to that question." I think it is important that there is clarity about this, so that there are no different interpretation options.

Why were we not inclined at the latest committee meeting to immediately give our approval to an adaptation of the basic legislation? You know that we have submitted an amendment to this bill to better define the task of the Scientific Committee. You have made an attempt, Mrs. Minister, to address this through an amendment. However, I think we should say in all objectivity that with this Government amendment the Scientific Committee is still obliged to carry out a number of tasks for which it is not competent.

I assign you some of these tasks: the conduct of audits and inspections, the granting of approvals and authorisations, the development of trace and identification systems, the collection, arrangement, management, activation and dissemination of information related to an assignment, as well as the operation, organization and accessibility of databases. This is not a task for the Scientific Committee. I regret that my text, which was better, was not accepted. With my text, one had the opportunity to create complete clarity on this subject as well. This is why we voted against in the committee.

However, the other elements of this bill are a clear improvement. Therefore, I suggest that our group approve this draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. According to the report, “Some animal diseases can also have consequences for consumers’ health, such as salmonella, parasites or aphthalmic fever.” My question is whether, in your opinion, aphthalmic fever can actually have consequences on consumer health?

Now to the contents of the bill. I would like to tell you first of all that the drafting of this bill, in its spirit, delights me, as it must, I believe, delight, without wanting to prejudice the opinion of my colleagues, a certain number of them, even within the opposition. One of the major demands during the debates that took place at the end of 1999 was to clarify as best as possible the missions of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. The founding law, Madame the Minister, you can only admit it since you submitted today a draft amending law, was singularly vague on the agency’s definitive missions, but singularly precise on other issues such as the status of the delegated administrator or the composition of the advisory and scientific committees. It is important to be concerned about the quality of human resources. But without precisely and lastingly defining the tasks of the structure for which these people are supposed to work, it was from the beginning to handicape them in the creative mission that politics had entrusted them.

I think today you have met some of our expectations, at least in the context of the statement of reasons, since you insist on the necessary consolidation of control activities within the agency. However, I remain surprised by the legislative frilance that could in a few weeks prove to be the “Achille’s heel” of this bill. Indeed, in the law, you do not dare to enter the content of the extension of the control tasks. You even go to consider extending the agency’s missions only from the only area of the possible rather than opting for the affirmative. by

The law will incorporate from now on that the King "can entrust" and not "trust" the agency of additional tasks relating to the laws listed in article 5 of the 1999 law. I am unfortunately compelled, Mrs. Minister, to find a certain margin between the pugnacity of your political intention, developed in the explanation of the reasons, and ultimately the little guarantees you offer from a legislative point of view. by

Please be aware, therefore, that we will be ⁇ attentive to the translation of your political intentions, especially since the press has not hesitated right after the committee debate to highlight the disagreements that would exist within the majority itself on the agency’s missions within the framework of the new institutional landscape of St. Polycarp. by

Indeed, some have not hesitated to report that there have already been talks between the VLD and the Volksunie in order to strengthen the role of regions in the food chain control missions and to leave the federal agency the sole control of human health and consumption. This deviation would naturally be contrary to the objectives defined in the present bill but in line with the potential character of the text since, in the law, this extension of the tasks is only considered from the perspective of what is possible. by

I am all the more perplexed that, during our debate on the agricultural problem, last Wednesday in the plenary session, the Minister of Agriculture, in response to my concerns regarding the regionalization of agriculture, told me that, in the context of the crisis of aphthalmic fever, the future task of the agency would also be to combat such a crisis.

He went on to say that in the future there would need to be an institution capable of managing the aphthous fever crisis and that will be the responsibility of the agency. I would like to have clarifications on this subject. Will the agency actually be competent in such cases?

I take advantage of this debate to review the state of progress of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. This point has already been mentioned by our colleague, Mr. and browns. Fifteen days ago, in response to questions I asked you in the Health Committee, following the hearing of Mr. Beernaerts - who had left us on our end having not answered some of our questions - explained to you with force details that we were at a crucial moment of the constitution of this agency.

This kind of assertion also leaves me on my end, even though I want to believe you! In fact, no precise timing of the agency’s progress status is yet defined. The staff composing the agency is not yet determined. The communication staff, an essential tool in the clear disclosure of information to consumers, is still not constituted and the financing rules will – we are told – be modified within a year but you still remain silent about the direction of this reform. by

Everything remains to be constructed. Would I dare to say that maybe this is your way to emphasize that the services currently in place are quite performing in the work they produce? I think, in particular, of how they manage the different food crises that our country is going through today.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, it has been more than two years since somewhere a barrel of PCB oil has landed in a container fleet. This has at that time led to a political landslide and a number of powerful statements. Suddenly, it became clear that food security should become a top political priority at all policy levels. However, we find that we are actually still not far away, despite the successive crises and despite the fact that confidence in food and especially in meat has been further undermined. However, a formal promise was made that the agency would be set up in early 2000 and would protect us from all evil in the future. So it is high time that this change comes into being.

The agency exists on paper, but it still continues with a Director-General surrounded by the most necessary staff. I am not the only one who says that. I would like to quote a free tribune of two people from the CCOD, the Joint Group Committee for Middle-Earth and Agriculture. They say: "Nearly fourteen months after the law establishing the Federal Agency came into force, we find that the agency still has no staff. Only the manager is officially recruited. If the government then packs out with the Food Agency, it actually has one staff member, namely the manager, who recruits staff from five existing ministries for the performance of his a la carte tasks.”

We were from the beginning a party asking for the establishment of a multidisciplinary food agency. It is clear that food safety stands or falls with government-organized controls. These controls are as strong as the weakest link. If the weakest link breaks, the entire card box collapses. Therefore, the control services must cooperate well. Our experience in the Dioxin Commission has proved that. We are only talking about food security.

There will always be friction points with powers situated at other levels. In the future, we will have to learn more and more to cooperate with other levels. First of all, there needs to be a better harmonisation at European level. In the future, however, we will also have to work much more with people and administrations who are competent at other levels. In that regard, I think that with this bill you are actually trying to carry out a double move. At the federal level, you will try to concentrate as many tasks and personnel as possible in the agency under your custody. When it comes to controlling the smoking ban, I have no problem with that. That was already one of your powers. However, we are actually outside the framework of food safety. We could have known this from the beginning. What I find worse, however, is that you have given a different interpretation of the allocation of powers, included in the Lambermont draft, which has yet to be dealt with by Parliament. Therefore, I can only give you my view of this distribution of powers. There is no point in trying to make a large mastodont of the agency through all these routes. This is not really workable. If you create a large mastodont, we would face the same problems again. We learned in the Dioxin Commission that there was not only a communication problem between Agriculture and Public Health, but that there was also a communication problem within the various services of Public Health.

There was also a communication problem with the public health services. The more services there are, the more communication problems there will be in the agency. This is not a good operation.

It remains intolerable for us to use the operation to return to what was already agreed in April 2000 in the Council of Ministers. For all clarity, I quote: "The Council of Ministers has taken note of the note of the Presidents of the Costa in connection with the regionalization of Agriculture. The Council of Ministers mandates the Ministers of Institutional Reform to submit the following text to the Costa together with the two Presidents of the Costa:" - that text was subsequently also approved -, "a new article 6§1 in the Special Act on the Reform of the Institutions" - the agricultural policy and marine fisheries are thus transferred to the regions - "without prejudice to the federal competence regarding: the standardization and the applicable control on the quality of raw materials and plant products with a view to the protection of public health; two: the standardization and the applicable control on animal health, animal welfare and the quality of animal products with a view to the protection of public health; three: the revenue replacement measures in case of early discharge;" - which is less of interest in this debate — "BIR: BIR. This new article shall be without prejudice to the federal powers specified in Article 6 § 1".

The text was approved on 5 April 2000. There was an agreement on this text. We also ensured that the text was taken literally into the draft special law. It was only added – and I quote –: “The consent of the relevant northern governments is required for government measures on animal welfare that have an impact on agricultural policy.” I suspect that addition has to do with the controversial caudotomy. In any case, it does not deviate much from the principle of the agreement, in particular that the standardisation and control of both plant and animal raw materials and animal products would remain at the federal level, although for the protection of public health. This is clearly the framework within which the powers can be exercised federally. In the last paragraph, in my view, animal welfare also refers only to what appears in those points and therefore relates to public health. We made this provision even stricter last week and clarified that it is about food safety.

We are convinced that the agreement must be implemented. The risks already existing at different levels of competence will continue to exist. It is evident that there can also be problems for public health and even the health of our foods due to the environmental policies of the regions or by a number of other regional authorities. For example, we could see this in the dioxin crisis, which was the result of a poor waste policy. Therefore, there will always be consultation on that subject with the different levels of competence.

From your interpretation of the precautionary principle and the provision "in order to protect public health", you have entrusted this matter to the Food Agency. I would like to remind you of the debate on this subject in the committee following the question on cats and toxoplasmosis.

Remember the question about cats and toxoplasmosis. In fact, it does not make sense to include them in the Food Agency. If we were to interpret so broadly, almost everything that has to do with agriculture and what comes on our plate would have to be housed in the Food Agency. This may not be the intention.

I prefer a strict interpretation. The opinion of the State Council on this subject was clear. The definition of powers in accordance with objectives leads to interpretation problems. We are therefore pleased with the adjustment approved last week by the Consultative Committee, which for the remaining federal powers refers to, I quote: "... ensuring the safety of the food chain.”

I think you will have to reduce your interpretation somewhat. This is also reflected in the adjustment of the explanation for the transfer of personnel. You have attempted from the beginning – probably under pressure from the stakeholders – to keep the services DG4 and DG5 federal and to accommodate the agency. In any case, I can only point to the original text in which this was read as follows: DG4 and DG5 would remain federal. This regulation was amended last week. Along with the adjustment to the State Council’s opinion on the fact that it should relate to ensuring the safety of the food chain, it has been talked about the fact that these powers and the relevant staff should remain federal. Mrs. Minister, I think that there is still a need to figure out what is meant by "responsible personnel". In my opinion, this is not clear until now.

The same applies to funding, Mr. Minister. For the services DG4 and DG5 no funds were allocated for transfer to the regions in the draft funding law. However, DG4 and DG5 have a number of powers that have absolutely nothing to do with food safety. I therefore find it useful to entrust the working group with the task of examining which staff members will be transferred to the regions, taking into account the interpretation of the State Council.

Mrs. Minister, you claim that this was not your intention. We have no view of the draft royal decree on the dispatch of personnel that was approved by the Council of Ministers in early March. If we look at the minutes of the Council of Ministers, we read in them that it is really the staff members of DG4 and DG5 and not just “certain” staff members. What exactly is in that draft royal decree? Shouldn’t this design be adapted to that stricter interpretation which I consider necessary?

A number of concrete cases still need to be clarified. A number of colleagues have already referred to the example of the mouth and neck disease crisis. I quote Mr. Beernaert who said in a newspaper article: “Typical animal diseases such as mouth and neck disease and swine fever, which do not pose a threat to food security, do not fall within my competence.”

Mr. Beernaert said in early March that it belonged to agriculture. He later added that it is not entirely logical. The consumer cannot make this distinction. He wanted to retain the power. Is it necessary? If agriculture was not transferred, it would also not be covered by the Food Agency. The purpose of his interpretation is therefore primarily to keep those powers federal. This is also evidenced in the response of Minister Gabriëls to the question of colleague Paque last week. He has quoted that answer. He motivates that a mouth and neck disease crisis cannot be addressed in different ways. A federal approach is needed. Since there is no federal Department of Agriculture, the Food Agency will take on that task.

I still believe that this competence should also go to the regions. The regions will also be competent for a number of other aspects of a crisis that exists for purely economic reasons and which is largely also addressed economically. If the regions wish to delegate some of their control tasks to the Food Agency, they can at least decide for themselves.

In addition to a crisis such as mouth and neck disease, diseases of small pets do not have to do with food safety. They will therefore also, but preferably not only, reach the regions.

Mrs. Minister, especially your memory of explanation was quite shocking for me and my group. The reason for this may be because you want to put as much as possible under the Food Agency. However, this has also created uncertainty and confusion in the sectors concerned and among the officials concerned. Therefore, there needs to be urgent clarity on the ground. Over the last few days, I’ve been listening to my ears everywhere. In my opinion, few people know exactly what it is about or how the fork is in the stake. I therefore ask for your efforts to create clarity on this matter as soon as possible.

I am a federalist and I will always be. However, in order to maintain powers at the federal level, one must also have a goal. In order to be able to conduct a better policy and to be able to control better, regionalization seems to me better. In the long run, the standards should be as European as possible. I would therefore have nothing against the Federal Agency moving over time to regional agencies in order to organize the control as closely as possible. One should not portray the division over the regions as if it would by definition lead to chaos or to a worse governance. At least that is not my intention.

I still have questions about the transfer of the Pharmaceutical Inspection. We have not yet received a response on this subject either. Your draft royal decree refers to the Pharmaceutical Inspectorate. I would like to know exactly which parts of the Pharmaceutical Inspection will or will not be transferred. The Pharmaceutical Inspection has little to do with food safety. The administration of medicines to animals is in the hands of veterinarians. This is also controlled by veterinarians. The maximum residues are checked by the business veterinarians. Only the distribution system of veterinary medicinal products is controlled by the Pharmaceutical Inspection.

However, you understand that the distribution system of veterinary medicinal products is not a very separate circuit. In many cases, the same raw materials are used for human and veterinary medicines. I am afraid that the control of this, which now actually sometimes is already very short, in which one would intercept illegal things, will no longer be possible with the Food Agency. There, in fact, a part of the pharmaceutical inspection will be cut off from the powers they have in other fields, in particular that of human medicinal products. The same applies to the registration of veterinary medicinal products. I do not really think that this should be done by the agency. There are also a number of similar things that also hit the human medicines. Even if we would include the registration of veterinary medicinal products, according to the same logic, it should only be about the registration of medicinal products for livestock. What then do we do with the registration of veterinary medicinal products for cats and dogs? Will we also make a distinction?

For me, you could have made your agency a Food and Drug Administration. It could also have been a Food and Drug Agency. That might have solved that problem more easily. Now, however, we have chosen an agency that will deal with food safety. I think the Pharmaceutical Inspection will be able to do very little within that agency. Of course, I have nothing against the fact that pharmacists will be recruited and employed for the agency within the normal controls that take place: they have their knowledge and their contribution. However, I am talking about the specific tasks of the Pharmaceutical Inspection. I find it pointless that one will accommodate in the agency a piece of which we do not yet know what it will be right. This will provide for other communication problems and data transfer.

For me, the problem of competence is the most important point to be clarified in this bill. We will listen to the Minister’s response. I abstained in the committee. Depending on your answer, we will determine the voting behavior of the group tomorrow. That is not to say that I do not share the concern of our colleagues about the operationality of the agency or the communication lock that needs to be installed. I would add one thing here. I would like to refer back to Mrs. Burgeon’s attempt to submit an amendment. I took this from her, I couldn’t leave it. Who can the plus, can the less, they say. What is stipulated in the draft special law, namely that there must be mandatory consent of the regions if one enters a territory that may affect them, I have poured in an amendment. I will explain this later too.

Mrs Van de Casteele, I must ask you not to explain the amendment, because it is not admissible. I will explain you why. Article 62, paragraph 3 of our Rules of Procedure states: "If an amendment to a bill or proposal to be adopted by absolute majority must be adopted by a special majority or vice versa, it is not admissible." I cannot accept your amendment. I checked it and received advice from the services.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, ⁇ everyone remembers how the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain was established.

During the last fourteen days of the 1999 election campaign, a dioxin crisis broke out that undeniably left traces in our country. There was a lot of media heisa and the logical consequence was that food security became a real election topic. In the purple-green government statement following the election punishment of the Christian Democrats, it was stated that by the end of 1999 a Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain should be established.

Indeed, on 15 December 1999, we urgently discussed in Parliament the draft law establishing the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain, and on 4 February 2000, the relevant law was adopted.

In the meantime, the agricultural sector has not been saved. The dioxin crisis was followed by BSE and now we are facing the mouth and clove disease crisis. In other words, whether we like it or not, each of us faces the problems of food security every day.

As responsible politicians, we must dare to say that some media are very dangerously interacting with human emotions today. Broadcasting emotional television messages about the bio-business of a goat farmer from Klemskerke, in full mouth-and-clowner crisis, will ⁇ not benefit an objective reporting regarding the necessary measures to be taken to protect food safety.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, already during my intervention on this tribune, following the discussion of the bill establishing the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain, I said that my group placed several critical notes on this Federal Agency. Meanwhile, more than a year later, I do not feel compelled to make drastic changes to my opinion of the time. The Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain was not a big success. As with so many matters during this purple-green coalition, much remains stuck in the phase of a beautiful dream, but its concretization on the ground usually does not want to float.

The draft law amending the law of 4 February 2000 establishing the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain is situated within the broader framework of the Lambermont-bis Agreement. Especially with regard to the regionalization of agriculture — which some colleagues have already pointed out — there is indeed a problem of competence delimitation with regard to the control of animal diseases. The present bill clearly calls for more powers for the federal agency.

In the memorandum of explanation, you were indeed very clear, Mrs. Minister, and I quote: “The decision to regionalize Agriculture, but in which certain control aspects of the current services are still entrusted to the FAVV, has resulted in a significant expansion of the initially intended powers, tasks and tasks of the FAVV. The main extension is to ensure the supervision of all aspects related to animal health and animal welfare.” Here, therefore, you unambiguously follow the line of the Delegate Manager of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain — Ms. Van de Casteele correctly pointed out — who in an interview in the Gazet of Antwerp of 19 March last said: “Typical animal diseases such as COC and swine fever that do not pose a threat to food safety, do not fall within my competence. This is agriculture. Logically, this is not the case, because the consumers do not make the distinction and, moreover, the boundary is not always as sharp as it can be defined.” What further says the delegated manager of the Federal Agency, and that is the most concrete: “Animal health is therefore also part of the FAVV’s home.”

Exactly about the competence in animal health, in fact, during the discussion of the present draft law in the Committee for Public Health, on 6 March last year, an animated discussion arose.

Furthermore, we are faced with the opinions of the Council of State on the preliminary drafts of the special law, which are to implement the Lambermont Division Agreement.

In the opinions of the State Council it is clear that there remains a vague definition of the concept “to protect public health”. The State Council also notes that the explanatory memorandum states that the federal government remains competent in matters that enable it to conduct an optimal paritary policy through the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, on 6 March 2001, both colleague Van de Casteele and senator Vankrunkelsven announced that the approval of the present bill violates the Lambermont-bis agreements. On 14 March 2001, Minister Gabriels, on behalf of the Prime Minister, answered a question from colleague Tant on the correct interpretation of the Lambermont Agreements. As for agricultural powers, he gave a clearly differently inspired answer. I quote Mr. Gabriels: “Mr. Tant has asked to clarify whether the standardization and control of animal diseases will be regionalized. At the moment, we cannot give a clear answer to this question.” In accordance with the precautionary principle that prevails in public health, and in order to conduct an effective sanitary policy, this federal competence applies regardless of whether this disease is currently recognised as harmful to humans.

Mrs. Minister of Public Health, last Thursday, during the questioning hour in the Chamber, we could once again find that you also confirmed that animal health is and remains a federal competence. This contradicts the assertion of the People’s Union-Idee21 group that this matter will be regionalized.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Parliament of a group that did not participate in the Lambermont negotiations, I can only ask the Minister of Health here and now whether the preliminary draft special law was updated, after the nightly negotiations of last week, in the sense proposed by the Council of State, specifically with regard to the regionalization of Agriculture. The House, by the way, is still not formally taken by the draft special law. The drafts have not yet been formally submitted to this Parliament. Consequently, we have no other means to ask the Minister how the special law is concrete. Has the preliminary draft special law been updated, and the opinions of the State Council have been taken into account?

The discussion of this special law is the first lakmus test for the implementation of the Lambermont Agreement. The argument of Colleague Van de Casteele does not give me any further clarity. The vagueness still exists. From the People's Union-Idee21 group still sounds a critical tone. So now it will have to be revealed that either the minister has interpreted the federal powers a little too broadly, or it will be revealed in a few days that the People’s Union again makes another concession. In the latter case, I must, on behalf of my group, cite Mrs Van de Casteele from the committee report of 6 March 2001. She then said that, as far as her group is concerned, a unitary recovery is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. There are still problems with launching the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. Since the appointment of the delegated director, little progress has been made. The Agency is still not really operational. In fact, there is only a certain form of cooperation between the various inspection services. Although a decision was made on the Council of Ministers of 9 and 16 March 2001 on the provision of personnel, there is still no prospect of a real staff formation. Therefore, my group considers it inappropriate that an extension of the powers of the Agency is already requested. Article 2 of the draft special law, inter alia, gives the King the power to entrust additional tasks to the Agency by means of a decision consulted in the Council of Ministers.

Here we are asking for another blanco cheque. For us this goes too far.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, from my critical comments on the present bill you can conclude that the Flemish Bloc is not very inclined to approve this draft. In principle, we remain in our position that all powers in public health and agriculture should be transferred to the communities and regions, respectively, and, of course, should be placed in a general European context. Then, in our vision, there will be no room for a Belgian intermediate level.

So far, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, some critical notes I wanted to bring from the Flemish Blok group to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, it is correct that in the context of this bill, which aims to amend the law of 4 February, a number of developments are taken into account.

Given the very strict and restrictive description of the actual mandate of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain, it could be interpreted so restrictively that certain tasks cannot be included, although this greatly facilitates things for the unit of approach and action. I am not talking about the delicate area of separation in terms of powers, which I will go deeper into later. I refer in this context to a number of tasks of the Food Inspectorate, which are not directly related to the safety of the food chain, but unity of action is very appropriate here.

I also said during the discussion in the committee that this evolution is connected with political decision-making, which at one point sets boundaries, which may happily be reopened at another time.

We have made a clear choice in order to create the best possible efficiency for the companies subject to the Agency’s control authority and to guarantee greater legal certainty on the ground.

De facto, this fact alone will lead to an administrative simplification in the contacts with the companies. For example, companies, which obviously require different approvals and undergo a proportionate number of controls, will in the future need a single approval and will face only one single control team. Of course, this results to some extent in a certain degree of business comfort, which has naturally been taken in, but it also allows the government to organize itself in a more efficient manner in order to improve the functioning of the public service, with a beneficial effect for the efficient use of the public finances, which are generated to a large extent by the companies themselves.

Mr Brouns, in this regard, I would like to close to your comment on the separation between policy preparation and policy control. In the agency and in the discussion of the first bill, we said that there should be a separation between standardization and control. Related to control is the policy preparation. However, the Scientific Committee gives impulses that need to be translated into policy. If they signal a problem from this or that angle, it should lead to adjustments in terms of standardization or the organization of certain types of control.

Therefore, policy preparation and policy control remain together, but in this case the standardization is explicitly assigned to the Department of Public Health. So it remains so.

I will now go deeper into your questions about external control. So far, much has already been worked on this. As already announced at the first discussion, we provide in the first place with the design and stimulation of self-control in the companies, as the first step in the construction of the control chain. Second, there is control by the agency itself. The structure of the Agency also provides for an instrument for integrated control, which should also be able to monitor the two previous steps. For all this, we will not wait for Europe. Moreover, the structure of self-control provides instruments that refer to external control, in particular ISO, HACCP, as already mentioned. This remains the purpose of our policy.

Last Monday I had a conversation with Commissioner Byrne, as part of the preparation of the Belgian Presidency of the second half of this year. The themes of food safety and the food authority, which is to be established at European level, are points in which we want to play an active role with the Belgian Presidency. Hopefully we will be able to build on what will be realized in Belgium in the meantime. I make a small parenthesis about what has been achieved and not achieved. You do not have any difficulty in making the same constatation as you, in particular that the placement of the Agency at a price plus de temps que ce qui était prévu initialement. You have already seen this several times and this does not pose any problem for me to recognize. You are not happy because we have pushed things to the maximum.

Meanwhile, things have evolved. There was an intensification in the level of collaboration between the various departments that was almost nonexistent before. Everyone involved in the work we are doing now together is aware of this. by

I will cite, for example, the implementation of the measures that have been requested by Europe in the context of combating the possible contamination of humans by the disease of the mad cow. Belgium was – and the European Commission said it during several meetings – among the countries that were best prepared from the beginning of the implementation and it is thanks to the green lines of communication, the culture of cooperation between certain parts of departments, DG4 – DG5 and especially the IEV, that all this work was able to be done very quickly.

Third, we have continued to run the CONSUM program which is a monitoring program at different levels, seen as an example by many other countries who ask us for advice on how we do it, etc.

Fourth, significant investments were made in terms of traceability under Beltrace in cooperation with sectors and considerable progress was also made. With regard to the legal system as well as the actual “Agency” system, we are currently working in collaboration with the delegated administrator, a good dozen people as well as with the scientific committee that is currently working.

There is nothing to say that nothing works within the framework of this Agency and the same goes for the Advisory Board which is formed and which, within three weeks, will have its installation meeting as soon as possible. As for the royal decrees published on 28, there is the royal decree regarding the provision of personnel.

Mrs. Van de Casteele, you say that I have intentions and I make statements that do not touch the side. Never, nor last year, nor at the hearing in the committee, I said that the entire DG4 and the entire DG5 would remain federal; not at all. As you can ask from those who were present, the person who submitted the amendment on the staff concerned was I, Mrs. Van de Casteele. So please stop with your intention processes. As if I was trying to transfer the totality of DG4 to the agency! That is not necessary, because then there would be people who we can absolutely not use there. That is not my style either. By the way, I have also ensured that on my own initiative — not even at the request of the regions — they have access to the data of the Sanitel system so that they can better conduct their policies. So moderate a little your assumptions and your comments.

I appreciate what you just said. I have not said that you are at the base of this. I only found that it was so in the original texts. It has also been confirmed to me that from the beginning the various working groups, which have met on this subject, intended that DG4 and DG5 would remain federal. I do not know who was behind it. It may well have been the officials themselves—that I have said afterwards, by the way.

I only found that it was originally included in the texts. Furthermore, during the discussions on the appropriations to be transferred, I had to conclude that no appropriations for DG4 and DG5 were transferred because the personnel were not transferred. If your statements are correct, that point will have to be revised, Mrs. Minister.

Mrs. Van de Casteele, that was not included in this way in the special law, nor in the royal decree. I do not want to submit an amendment that contradicts a royal decree that I have worked on! Let that be clear.

When it comes to communication, I fully agree that it is a very important element. Communication should be transparent, high-quality and play on the ball. The recruitment of personnel for this purpose is a priority. The communication cell will be able to rely on the work provided by the Scientific Committee, and will be able to contact the Scientific Institute for Public Health for expertise.

I would like to make a parenthesis on the report of a number of researchers from several universities on the effects of the dioxin crisis. One of their findings was that the margin of interpretation about the consequences is infinite. When one states that the consequences of the dioxin crisis can lead to either 40 or 8,000 more cases of cancer — these numbers are so far apart — this is an illustration that this is not a basis for making very precise and detailed statements.

The Scientific Institute of Public Health was commissioned more than a year ago to conduct a body burden study. It will be completed in May with a symposium and will be communicated to the general public with the necessary attention. Based on this data, we will be able to relativize previous statements.

I will now talk about the powers. What is regulated here is only creating the possibility to make the control services work as efficiently as possible. I have already said this in the committee. The standards are clearly federal. For certain aspects, they are also regional. No controls can be carried out without the regions wanting to do so. That is the clear limit. I do not feel called to go into the details of the competence discussion.

The main issue is animal health. The text of the law clearly states that the standardisation and control of animal health standardization is a federal competence in so far as it concerns the safety of the food chain. I have already said this in the plenary session. In the explanatory memorandum, it is stated regarding animal health that there is a regular shift in the determination of whether something is dangerous or not. There have been animal diseases that were thought to have no impact on human health. BSE is the best example. In the meantime, it is known that it can provide for the variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob.

This is also indicated. I invite you to read the text carefully. Then you will notice that there is indeed a margin of interpretation. It has always been so. With each transfer scenario, there are interpretations of margins that will need further clarification. It is obvious that everything related to food chain security is federal.

You say yourself that there are endless players on the ground, both in the administrations, as well as in the farmers and veterinarians. There are last-minute battles in which, in this case, attempts have been made to regionalize the overall animal health. That attempt has been made.

Finally, I want to say something about the Pharmaceutical Inspection. It is very clear that we are not going to employ dozens of people. This would weaken the service rather than strengthen it. However, there is a need to have sufficient knowledge of the use of veterinary medicinal products within the Agency in such a way that risks can be analyzed.

That stands for me as a pillar above water and that is also acquired. That knowledge must be made available for risk analysis through certain units of the Agency. This is what it is about and it is in no way intended to remove the agency. The entire demarche that is now underway is going in exactly the opposite direction of what is intended.

Compared to the original text, there is now a limitation in the Scientific Committee, which partly responds to the criticism formulated on the subject. The limitation does not go as far as that in your amendment, Mr. Brouns, but it is a clear improvement compared to the previous text. For example, we believe that the Scientific Committee should be informed about certain types of controls, so that members can formulate advice based on their scientific knowledge about risks and such. It is not their intention to say how something should be done, but whether they consider one or the other appropriate. We have thus understood the provision a little more broadly.

I understand your explanation, but the mandatory nature of the opinion remains.

Indeed, the mandatory character remains. When information enters, it must be responded to it. Of course, one will give very extensive advice on matters in which one is competent. If, on the other hand, one is of the opinion that one can say only a few things about it, one will not be long engaged in it and the advice will be very short.

I asked two very specific questions that I did not receive an answer from the Minister.

The first was related to his statement in the committee reiterated in the report, namely that aphthalmic fever could have consequences on consumer health.

My second question was to ask if, assuming Lambermont’s agreements were voted, the Agency would be competent to manage an aphthous fever crisis in the future, which will not happen, I hope. I saw you smile, Mrs. Minister, but I did not receive an answer to my question.

My two questions require a very short answer: yes or no in both cases.

To answer the first question of Mr. I remember very well what I said in the committee. I did not say that aphthous fever constitutes a danger to public health. I referred to the statements of Mr. by Gabriels. According to him, it was not desirable that animals who had suffered from aphthous fever enter the food chain. The food chain is the task of the Agency. I can understand that a rapporteur who does not want to rewrite every verbatim intervention makes such a shortcut but I guarantee you that this is not what I said.

These reports are very important documents that pass on the website. I know that the website of the Chamber is very often consulted, Mr. President. Therefore, it is necessary to be very careful in writing this kind of text, especially in the current situation. We talked about communication problems in May 1999. I think the problem is the same today.

The report may need to be modified. I can understand, Mr. Minister, that you said this in the committee. I do not remember your words word for word, but as it is written in the text, we clearly put the aphthous fever on the same foot as parasites or salmonella, therefore with consequences on the health of the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the second question, namely whether the agency will be treating sting fever in the future, the answer to be given at this time is as follows. If it is said that sting fever has no effect on the food chain, the conclusion is that this is not officially part of the Agency’s control task.

If, however, one considers, within the framework of what is indicated in the exhibition of the reasons - I said that there was still a margin of interpretation - that to facilitate things, it would not be bad, in this case, it is feasible.

In any case, within the framework of this bill, since it is a concrete control, it is said that according to the wishes of the Regions, controls can be carried out by the Agency. As a result, I said “it could.”

I am not going to repeat the whole discussion here. First, I find that your answer, Madam the Minister, is contrary to what the Minister of Agriculture told us, exactly a week ago, in this same tribune.

Next, I always refer to the report: “This project will help to avoid having to check every time whether the control to be carried out is directly related to food safety or consumer health.”

I also find there a contradiction with what is said and what is proposed. Assuming that in the future, we should ask ourselves whether or not this disease has an effect on consumer health, we risk coming to a cacophonic management, with regions wanting to deal with it at the same time as the federal with the Agency. Eventually, crises will not be managed, control cannot be effectively carried out and the situation will be worse than before 28 May 1999.

Mr. Speaker, the text of the law speaks of the food chain, the exposition of the motifs creates a width. There will be no difficulty in agreeing on a line of conduct. In any case, I repeat, the control can be done "on request of".

What the Minister has said here is correct. The explanatory memory leaves a margin that needs to be clarified. This exercise must be done. Efficiency and safety must come first, that is clear.

As far as the Pharmaceutical Inspectorate is concerned, we have been closer to each other. I have already said that the know-how of the Pharmaceutical Inspectorate can ⁇ be useful within the framework of the Agency. I just want to avoid housing people here who would be somehow cut off from the tasks they are currently performing in the public interest, both in relation to public health and animal health. That cannot be the intention. There are individual cases anyway because the Pharmaceutical Inspection is so small. I hope you will find people who want to volunteer their know-how to the agency.

No one is obliged to transfer to the agency. That is the base line in relation to all departments. However, there are many people who want to.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.