Proposition 50K1907

Proposition de loi portant des dispositions diverses relatives à l'Agence fédérale pour la Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Michèle Gilkinet
Groen Anne-Mie Descheemaeker
MR Robert Hondermarcq
Open Vld Yolande Avontroodt
PS | SP Colette Burgeon
Vooruit Magda De Meyer

Submission date

July 4, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

food inspection civil servant tax civil service public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA

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 ¶

July 15, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, you reassured me somewhat recently by reminding me that there is free speech in this Parliament!

Of course, it is free, there would be no more than that!

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

The Plenary Session of the House of 4 July 2002 returned the Bills 1906 and 1907 to our commission. During its meeting on 5 July, the committee examined these two proposals. A procedural accident resulted in a request for consultation of the State Council made by Ms. Pieters, given the significant implications that Article 2 would have on the sector.

Minister Aelvoet recalled that the Bill No. 1907 re-entries the texts of amendments submitted by the government, after the vote of the law-programme in the committee. Due to this delay, it was decided to include the amendments in the proposal. However, on 1 July 2002, the opinion of the State Council had been requested.

By one vote against 4, the committee rejected Mr. Pieters’ proposal to consult the State Council. Pieters submitted a request for a hearing to allow the committee to hear representatives of consumer organisations and the food industry. The committee rejected this request by nine votes against three and one abstention. Ms Descheemaeker, co-signator of the proposal, explained that this text aims to provide a solution to two urgent problems relating to the Agency: on the one hand, creating the legal basis for providing, in specific cases, adequate funding for the BSE test through a remuneration, the costs of the BSE tests imposed by Europe can in no way be replicated on the livestock; and, on the other hand, by inserting another article, creating the legal basis governing the status of the Agency’s staff.

Pieters pointed out that the two bills were similar, at least as far as the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain is concerned. Ms. Pieters expressed its disagreement with Article 2 relating to the financing of tests. For the intervenient, the recommended measure will have the effect of making the cost of these tests bear by the consumer.

The rapporteur asked the Minister what the words "food sector operator" meant and specified that it should be avoided that the remuneration, in any case, be borne by the food producer, i.e. the producer breeder. It would therefore be more interesting or preferable to use the word "operator". The rapporteur also requested that it be clarified that the costs of BSE are fully borne by the consumer. It noted with satisfaction that improvements were made in the cost of waste disposal, as agreed in the regional agreements. He said that it was now acknowledged that it is the Minister of Public Health who is in charge of fixing the amount of charges charged to the operators concerned. This provision aims to prevent that levy being assimilated to a new tax.

Regarding the AFSCA and the proposed arrangement through the transfer of 56 employees from the DG4 and DG5 as well as the General Food Inspection to the Agency, the framework of the staff of the IEV has not changed in any way, the minister assured. It would be necessary, the rapporteur requested, to clarify in the text that these 56 agents will not perform any tasks at the IEV.

The rapporteur also stated that he would have hoped that all the veterinarians in charge of the IEV mission could be transferred to the Agency, but it turns out that this is not possible. Finally, he pledged that IEV mission officials who hold the required diplomas can apply as part of the 56 officers’ engagement for the Agency. The rapporteur also called for the entry into force of the law to take into account the time required by operators to adapt to new decisions.

Ms. Burgeon requested respect for the decision of the Consultation Committee of 26 October marking the agreement of the federal and regional governments through the mechanism for the consumer to bear both federal and regional costs.

Pieters recalled that the 2001 program law already contained a provision in which the tests would be funded in a solidary manner by the sector but she questioned the future of this provision. As regards the term “remuneration”, Mr Pieters, who mentioned it in the same paragraph, argued that according to the definition of the Council of State, a remuneration refers to a fee made in order to compensate for a service rendered by the State to a beneficiary. The Minister replied that the terms "food operator" are included in the European Commission and Council Regulation and that these terms clearly exclude the primary production sector in order to avoid testing being borne by farmers who are already in a difficult situation. The Minister has confirmed that, as indicated in paragraph 1 of article 2, it is the Minister who has Public Health in his attributions who will determine the amount of the remuneration.

Responding to a question from the rapporteur, the minister confirmed that the 56 agents that will be recruited will not be assigned to the IEV and that it was decided that the mission officers would retain their status as independent. As soon as the single status to be negotiated with the trade unions has been determined, employees from the IEV but who do not have the status of mission officers will be integrated into the Agency. It is natural, the minister said, that all mission officials who wish to leave their status of independent and become contractual can apply for the Agency.

Regarding Ms. Pieters’ remarks, the minister recalled that during the discussion of the previous program law, she did not hide that from the moment when the tests were no longer borne by the state budget but that they must be financed if they could not be borne by the producer, they must finally be borne by the consumer.

She ⁇ that she had met, some time ago, representatives of CRIOC and Test Purchases. by

Responding to the criticism that the costs of the tests are paid by the consumer, the minister noted that if these costs are borne by the state budget, they are necessarily borne by each taxpayer.

Finally, the Minister considered it important that the situation be as transparent as possible for the consumer.

Pieters asked if the meat from Argentina or elsewhere had already been tested. The minister replied that the meat imported from Argentina was, like the others, subject to the sanction of the European Scientific Committee, which organizes a monitoring of these countries.

Pieters notes that the consumer will not receive an invoice and that the remuneration introduced in the bill does not constitute compensation for a service rendered to a recipient considered individually. It has, therefore, ⁇ ined that it was indeed a tax.

The rapporteur also asked whether the minister could confirm that it is the wholesaler delivering the meat to the last distributor link that will have to indicate the amount of the levy on its invoice, charged for this distributor to recover this amount from the consumer.

Article 1 did not raise any comments and was adopted by 12 votes and 1 abstention. by

Article 2 was adopted by 10 votes against 3.

Article 3 did not raise any comments and was adopted by 12 votes and 1 abstinence.

Ms. Pieters filed a new amendment to stipulate in Article 4 that the publication of the royal decree is postponed.

Ms. Pieters’ amendment was rejected by 10 votes against 3.

All provisions of the bill were adopted by 11 votes and 2 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, the plenary session of the House of Representatives on 12 July returned the article 2 of the bill and the amendments submitted after report to the committee. Our committee examined them during its meeting on 12 July.

Ms. Pieters found that there were contradictory statements regarding the State Council opinion.

Minister Aelvoet replied that it had always been said that an opinion had been requested on government amendments. That is why the committee had decided not to seek a new opinion on the proposal whose content was almost identical.

The Minister denied that there had been a delay in the communication of the opinion; it was not known until 11 July 2002 and sent it directly to the Chamber.

Ms. Pieters noted that the State Council had made serious objections. The latter noted, in the first place, that the Scientific Committee of the Agency had not been consulted.

It also stated that there were doubts as to the qualification of the imposed levy.

Some parliamentarians of the majority submitted an amendment to respond to this criticism, proposing to insert the words "health quotation".

According to Pieters, by imposing this levy only on the food sector, the High Court also introduced a difference in treatment. In order to comply with the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination, this difference had to be taken into account. In this regard, it is recommended, the State Council said, to provide a motivation during the parliamentary discussion.

Finally, when asked about the definition of the words "food sector operators", the minister referred to the definition of food sector enterprises as formulated in the European Regulation. For Ms. Pieters, it is hard to find that this definition is far too long. It would have been more reasonable to refer to point 7 of the above-mentioned regulation.

In view of all these observations, Mr. Pieters submitted five amendments, in particular aiming to replace the text of Article 2 in such a way as to attribute the costs of the quick test to the budget of the Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health. In subsidiary order, the interviewer submitted an amendment also aiming to postpone, until the day of publication of the royal decree provided for in Article 2 of the proposal. Finally, in the event that these amendments were rejected, it submitted two other amendments aimed at amending Article 2, in order to meet the objections of the State Council.

The rapporteur stressed that these observations had already been made in a committee at the meeting of 5 July 2002.

by Mr. Bultinck found, like Ms. Pieters, that the State Council opinion contained fundamental criticisms regarding the remuneration system. That is why he submitted an amendment aimed at removing purely and simply Article 2 of the proposal.

Ms. Descheemaeker and consorts filed an amendment that meets, in part in any case, she said, the critics of the State Council by inserting the words "health quotation" directly after the word "return". It also specified the extent of the powers of the King, since Article 2, § 2 of the proposal is supplemented as follows: "These powers conferred on the King cease six months after the entry into force of this law. In the case of a health contribution, the royal decrees taken in execution of this Act shall be repealed by law with retroactive effect on the date of their entry into force if they have not been confirmed by the legislator in the calendar year following the entry into force.

Ms. Brepoels, in turn, made a number of remarks. She recalled that, within the aforementioned framework, it was difficult to extend these financial levies to other specific tasks. It specified that the State Council provided sufficient information about the constituent elements of the tax reimbursement to make it clear that the bill was not in accordance with this State Council opinion.

The Minister finally pointed out that while it is true that the State Council has formulated two fundamental objections, the first concerns the limitations related to the use of the notion of remuneration.

If, according to the opinion, there are not sufficient elements to draw a conclusion as to the qualification of the referred levies, it is because the way in which the royal decree will take shape is not yet known. by

The other fundamental criticism concerns a possible violation of the principle of equality. In this regard, the bill clearly specifies the reasons why producers were excluded from the remuneration system. By choosing the term "health quotation", a limitation is made of what can be covered by the specific tasks carried out by the AFSCA. These must necessarily be related to health protection.

The remuneration or health contribution will allow the financing of the ESB. The specific tasks listed herein are not the tasks normally covered by AFSCA. For these, there are other complementary means. by

The Minister confirmed that the reference in the definition of food business operators is correct. The reason for this choice is due to the fact that the decision that will be adopted will target the last chain preceding the consumer. The amount of this remuneration or contribution must be clearly indicated on the invoice.

Finally, as regards the State Council’s formal comment on the mandatory consultation of the Scientific Committee, the Minister drew the attention of the members of the committee on the fact that this requirement exists only for bills and not for proposals.

Ms. Brepoels challenged this critical argument of consultation and Ms. Pieters confirmed Mrs. Brepoels’s observation. by

Mrs Avontroodt wished that the Minister confirmed that the charge remuneration for the last channel can only be collected once and not at each stage of storage. The Minister confirmed this view.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the amendment of Mr. Bultinck was rejected by 11 votes against 4. Amendments No. 2 and No. 3 of Mrs. Pieters were rejected by 10 votes against 4 and one abstention. Amendment No. 4 by Ms Descheemaeker was adopted by 10 votes against 4 and one abstention.

In second reading, pursuant to Article 72, no comments were made during the meeting of 12 July 2002 on the amended text of Article 2. It was adopted by 9 votes against 7. by

This report, which requested a second reading, was adopted on 15 July 2002 by 10 votes and 4 abstentions.

I am not sure that I have understood everything.

by Mr. Hondermarcq, of course, read two reports.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the reporter for the extensive report, with which he did not remember this half-course. I would like to return to some of the issues that have been discussed this week. You will remember that this bill was drafted holddebolder and that several meetings were spent in a week. On this bill several amendments, even by the majority, were submitted. Their

Mrs. Minister, there is a flood of suspicion that the negative opinion of the State Council was intentionally withheld. There is too much time gap between stamping the State Council opinion on July 9 and receiving it to your cabinet on July 11, as communicated by you in an undated letter.

This bill consists of two chapters. Let me start with the second chapter. Article 3 is identical to a proposal submitted by Mr Brouns. It is about creating the legal basis for recruiting staff for the Agency. This article in this bill enables a decision of the Council of Ministers of 8 March. After that, in response to the mini-PCB crisis, the Council of Ministers decided that the Agency could hire additional personnel. We wonder how it is possible that the Minister has not taken an initiative in this for four months. We may never know. One thing is certain, Minister Aelvoet should not come to say that she is working with the Agency, that she really wants to realize it. Today, the opposite is openly proven. Four months after the decision of the Council of Ministers, the Minister himself has not yet given any implementation to the decision to recruit additional personnel for the Agency. For four months, she did nothing to recruit staff, until two weeks ago — at five o’clock on twelve — she came up with an amendment to the program law. too late . Forgetting the cabinet, so sounded the excuse. Their

Colleagues, either the minister is seriously engaged in her affairs and then something like this can not happen, or she hits it with the hat, or she just can’t and clunges on. You can choose yourself. Their

The first chapter of the bill is a more delicate point. It is about introducing a tax on meat, which must be paid by the consumer. Repeat the history. In the previous Programme Act of December 2001, an article was already approved to resolve the financing of BSE tests. The sector, except for the farmer — correctly — would pay for it. This was approved by this Parliament. Today, six months later, the minister has still not prepared a royal decree to implement the program law. No, moreover, she comes with a new article in the program law to trigger and the rest of the story you know. The Minister asks for a new mandate from this Parliament to finance special tasks. A food business, whatever the name may be, will in the future have to finance any assignment that the minister invents, without the Parliament being able to intervene. This is a form of delegation of power. Their

There are more, my colleagues. In the first paragraph of Article 2 there is a remuneration. The Council of State states in this regard: "There is only a remuneration if the tax occurs as the monetary remuneration for a service rendered by the government to the benefit of the taxable persons, considered individually. A tax which does not constitute the payment of a service rendered by the government to the benefit of the taxable persons considered separately is not a remuneration but a tax. The State Council continues: “If it is a remuneration, then the law itself must include the cases in which the remuneration applies and who are the taxable persons.”

In the opinion on the amendment that the Minister has submitted to the program law and which concerns the same content as this article, the State Council says that it cannot judge whether it is indeed a remuneration. In addition, the principle of equality is violated, according to the Council of State. The majority, with the exception of the VLD, now solves this problem through an amendment that adds the word health contribution twice to the word remuneration. This amendment, submitted by the majority parties, with the exception of the VLD, is intended, as I read it, to meet the opinion of the State Council. This countermeasure consists in clarifying that it is the intention of the majority to impose, in addition to imposing the BSE tests on consumers, a health contribution or health tax on the consumers of meat.

Therefore, the FAVV will not only be financed from the assessment rights, but a new health tax for meat-eaters will be introduced. I now understand why the amendment was not signed with the VLD. The masks have fallen. The masked option of speaking about special orders instead of clearly saying that the BSE tests are passed on to consumers is actually being clarified.

This health contribution is therefore an unfalsified tax for which the government also requests a full authority. The State Council has been forward-looking in its opinion by stating that when it comes to a tax an authorisation to the King is in principle not permissible to regulate the main components of this tax. This would only be different if the legislator intended to grant the King special powers. We suggested that it should be indicated which compelling reasons exist to invoke the system of special powers. This has not happened. The Council of State thus correctly concludes that such grounds were not invoked, nor do they appear from the data submitted to the Council of State.

Furthermore, Mrs. Minister, you do not wish to provide a solution to the problem raised in the committee last week Friday by the opposition regarding the content of the concept of "operators of the food business". If we argue that with this terminology of European Regulation 178/2002 you are at risk of the transfer of the BSE tests to the producers and processing enterprises, you answer that the Royal Decree will relate to the last link in the chain just before the end user. You expressly state that the retail trade is herein meant sensu strictu as the collectives — I do not understand what this means — and the restaurants that follow the retail trade. It is therefore waiting for a royal decree that will not be discussed here and that will be approved later, as decided by the Minister, instead of using immediately the correct description as mentioned in point 4 of the EC Regulation. 7 Retail trade, which clearly defines that it is the last link, which is the handling or processing of foodstuffs and their storage at the place of sale or delivery to the end user including distribution terminals, catering services, business cantines, institutional meal facilities, restaurants and similar services of food supply, stores, distribution centers for supermarkets and wholesale companies.

Mr. Secretary, you are holding foot at foot. We continue to say that this bill is a crap. This will not take you a step further. Your stubbornness drives you from one trap to another. We have submitted another amendment to your amendment because your amendment is incomplete. You’ve spoken twice about a health benefit in addition to remuneration, but the word remuneration occurs three times, so you should enter the word health benefit three times. The majority amendment is incomplete. Mrs. Brepoels and I have therefore drafted an amendment that we have just submitted so that it is yours in its entirety, not that we are behind it, but to indicate that your amendment is incomplete.

Mrs. Minister, if you publish your royal decree tomorrow, there will surely be someone going to the State Council to file a complaint because it will not be remuneration or because it is a discriminatory provision. So much is certain. You can submit the opinion of the State Council to you now, but tomorrow it will be flooded back unremittingly. Again months will pass, again you will watch, again you will claim that you are doing your best and washing your hands in innocence.

In the meantime, everyone knows that the purpose of this article is to get consumers to pay meat taxes. Consumers will soon be able to pay for BSE tests performed on cattle. Soon, anyone who buys a piece of meat or meat products in the store will pay a new tax. This is therefore unacceptable for us. With this scheme, the Belgian consumer funds BSE tests on meat exported. This is a direct subsidy by the Belgian consumer of the Belgian meat sector. The question is whether the European Commission will agree to the royal decree implementing this law. The Belgian consumer can find foreign meat in the store where the cost of the BSE test is already included. He then pays the bill twice, irrespective of your answer, Mrs. Minister, to the final question of the chairman of the committee that the tax would only be transferred once. In some cases, the consumer will pay a tax on meat that has not been tested for BSE. This is because a lot of meat on the Belgian market comes from young animals that are not tested for BSE.

There is also no clarity on the transparency of the proposed scheme for the consumer. Will the consumer see how much he pays for the BSE tests and will he know if the meat has been tested? In the last commission you answered that the amount of that remuneration or tax will be clearly visible on the invoice, so that the consumer perfectly knows how much he pays for the meat and how much he pays for the BSE test. I wonder what invoice the consumer will receive. A consumer will never receive an invoice. He will receive a ticket at most. Will it be written on that ticket what the remuneration or the tax is and what the price of his flesh is?

Why is this regulation needed? Because the government considers that vegetarians should not be solidary with the overwhelming majority of consumers who eat meat and meat products or the government considers that consumers of chicken or pork meat should be solidary with the consumers of beef? In addition, this proposal establishes an administrative burden for your dada. This is absurd, especially for a government that was going to do something about administrative simplification.

Finally, I have a few questions related to the meat tax: how much will this tax amount per kilogram of meat the consumer buys in the store? Can you tell us how this goes in other EU countries? Which countries transfer this tax to the consumer or to the producer? In which countries does the government continue to pay these taxes?

CD&V calls for the continuation of government funding for BSE tests. After all, this is much easier for everyone, and why make it difficult if it can be simple?

Mr. Speaker, we have therefore submitted our original amendment to Article 2, in addition to the improvement of the amendment of the government, which is the majority, or the majority being the government, again for discussion. We will soon be able to discuss this further.

Mrs. Brepoels, you have the word in the general discussion, although you do not have to take the word outspoken or long.

Mr. Speaker, you understand that if the Prime Minister honors us with his presence here, we must do our best. Since then, the rapporteur, Mr Hondermarcq, has already delivered a comprehensive report on the discussion. I can ⁇ congratulate him on the very comprehensive report. Nevertheless, although briefly, I would like to add a few points to this.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, in my opinion, we have had a discussion here that has lasted quite a long time, that has known a whole history and that for the time being only deals with the financing of the BSE tests. I still do not fully understand why such a complex discussion and arrangement has been proposed on this issue. After all, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Budget stated just a few days ago that there are sufficient resources available that, as a result of budget control, can still be spread across many initiatives, especially in terms of the additional costs of police reform. So why not pay the BSE costs?

We are working on a series of very complex matters for a measure that we know will be temporary. It is said that, as long as it is necessary, as long as it is imposed by Europe, that tests should be carried out. We know, of course, that in the meantime there are already other contracts that are being funded with this scheme. We are concerned about this because in recent months we have witnessed what discussion this has brought about, not only within the government, but also between the government and the regions and, above all, with the sector. You have said that you have not reached an agreement. Therefore, you have submitted an amendment within the framework of the program law.

Mrs. Minister, it is still unclear to me how such a arrangement fits the entire organization of the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain. You have said that the core task, the core tasks of the agency, are clearly defined in the law and that this does not belong to it. I wonder how a number of other aspects, diseases or problems, which may still express themselves in the course of the previous period, or even in the future, will be financed.

At the time that the amendment could no longer be discussed in the program law, you had already – fortunately – asked the State Council for an opinion on your proposal. Ms. Pieters has already emphasized that this opinion is destructive, as was, by the way, the case with regard to professional living agreements. However, we must note that the majority is in no way willing to respond to this fundamental advice. She is willing to add a word, but she wants to avoid the discussion about remuneration or taxation with the introduction of the term "health contribution".

To our great consternation we must also find that the majority is not even able to amend its own amendment in a defective way. In its choice for the health contribution, the majority has overlooked that this word should be added a third time to the amendment. Otherwise, the rules for the transfer to the consumer cannot be determined, which is an important point, regardless of the consequences of the non-payment or late payment of that health contribution. Ms. Pieters has already stressed that she is not in favour of this health contribution. The N-VA is not that either. However, we think that with this amendment we must help the majority, otherwise we will face within a few weeks or months a change in a decision or a complaint against the decision that the minister has yet to issue.

Mr. Minister, I ask you to listen. Mr. Erdman, the Minister should listen to Mrs. Brepoels and not just you.

Per ⁇ Mr. Erdman can listen to two different speakers at the same time!

The State Council refers to the opinion that you are obliged to obtain from the Scientific Committee. You have graciously admitted that you have not done because this advice is mandatory only for a design and not for proposals. I take it hard. At the time you submitted the amendment to the program law, we were dealing with a draft. At that point, you should have obtained the advice of the Scientific Committee. I read the law regarding the FAVV on it. I regret that the outside world is constantly being blinded to the importance of a scientific committee composed of national and international experts. At the moment when one needs to seek advice from this committee, one finds this no longer so important. The Committee was established to advise on all matters falling within the competence of the Agency and relating to the policy to be pursued by the Agency.

Now I know that you stated that this committee must only be consulted when it comes to draft laws. However, you will be faced with it in a very short time if you are obliged to submit the draft royal decree on the implementation of that law to the committee. You would have better done it in advance, which would have not only confirmed the value of that scientific committee. I am convinced that at that time we would have come to other proposals as well.

Another question is whether it is a tax or a remuneration. The majority has tried to solve that by introducing the term "health contribution". However, the Council of State notes that at the time when the transfer is made to the consumer, there is clearly an additional tax.

I think that these special orders are currently not at all in question, unless you can give them further completion and clarification, otherwise those orders are not at all relevant. Peterson also talked about the principle of equality. In this regard, the State Council advises that you should give more accountability here, during the parliamentary discussion. We also did not hear about this during the discussion during the committee work.

I have also asked questions about the method of financing. You have stated that the BIRB is making a pre-financing, as was already the case in the past. In the end, the Ministry must naturally reimburse the costs. In the meantime, you have had the time to review this too. Therefore, I would like to know whether the new Board of Directors of the BIRB still considers the pre-financing of such arrangements as its competence.

Mr. Speaker, I come to my decision. Since this is a temporary measure, we would like to continue the financing at the expense of the State. We want to ensure that there is a limitation in terms of a possible extension to other assignments.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to partly agree with the legal comments regarding the uncertainty of the terminology and in connection with the large delegations involved in this draft.

Particularly, I would like to express my dissatisfaction with the way this bill had to be dismissed, in this last working week, just like so many other major bills. However, we have seen this problem arise for a very long time. It is unfortunate that there could not be a serene debate.

Mrs. Minister, I was willing to exchange opinions on whether the costs of BSE should be paid by all Belgians or only by consumers. However, we have not been able to conduct this discussion.

I would have liked to have the Minister answered a number of questions that I could not ask in the committee because of the impossible times at which the debates were conducted.

Mrs. Minister, was it not possible to negotiate at European level so that the costs would be accounted for in a uniform manner, taking into account the effects on exports, imports and possible distortion of competition? I would also like to know how much the remuneration system will cost. After all, at some point, the retail or distribution will account for the remuneration. How will you control, organize and what are the additional costs?

In the past, we have also asked questions about the cost of BSE tests. Initially, they were very expensive, but due to the extensive tests, the price could go down. However, I assume that if the tests are institutionalized, the costs could be further pressed and the sector could gain greater grip on them. In the past, we have suggested that the industry could carry out the tests itself. Minister, do you have any information on this?

Finally, with the BSE problem, tests are not the only cost. There are also costs for the processing of the waste — which previously generated money — that are borne by the regions. There were also votes to implement a kind of meat stake. It does not seem to me logical that there would be no consultation on this, in order to avoid that the regions would soon introduce an additional tax for another aspect of the same problem. Did you discuss this with your colleagues?

As mentioned, there are two aspects to be discussed. First, there is the legal basis for the hiring of additional personnel. To the attention of Mrs. Pieters, I answer that a royal decree was first drawn up. For this I had the approval of the Ministry of Public Affairs and also of the Ministry of Budget. Their

At the level of the Financial Inspectorate, it was considered that these persons, since they had to start immediately within the Agency, had to be employed under a different status than the status of the basic sectors from which they started. That is why we were very recently confronted with a rejection from the Financial Inspectorate. Following the discussion, the Financial Inspectorate said that it would withdraw the objection as soon as the new base was available. In connection with the pre-selection, the preparatory work has already taken place. Second, Mrs. Van de Casteele, I do not want to talk about BSE financing. I will only respond to your comment that you would have wanted to conduct the debate. The debate that we did not want the costs to be borne by the budget or the farmers, we have already conducted extensively during the previous program law. That it is desirable to pursue a single European approach in this regard, I can fully assist you. Our country has always defended this position during European consultations on this subject. Now, in fact, different countries interpret the problem in a different way.

Finally, you say that "the health contribution" has not been mentioned once. This is indeed a mistake. Of course, it should have been done three times. I therefore accept the amendment.