Proposition 50K2176

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 22 février 2001 organisant les contrôles effectués par l'Agence fédérale pour la Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire et modifiant diverses dispositions légales.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 6, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

food inspection veterinary inspection public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

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 ¶

Feb. 19, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This bill was discussed at the same committee meeting on 4 February 2003. In the introduction, the timing was also emphasized. According to the political logic of the minister, this bill deserved a place in the Large Program Act of December 2002. According to the opposition, this was not possible for principled reasons and therefore it was also dealt with at the beginning of February 2003.

This draft law creates the possibility of subjecting all operators that supply to enterprises in the food industry to prior notification, authorisation or recognition. The need for this is, of course, determined by the potential risks posed by the supplies to the safety of the food chain. Furthermore – which is important in this bill – some criminal provisions are linked to non-compliance with these provisions. In the explanation, the minister said that it is precisely the industry that has a large demand for horizontal legislation, as is the case in the bill. Furthermore, a royal decree was issued — this must be seen together with the draft law — establishing the procedural rules and the modalities of payment of the administrative fines following checks carried out in application of the legislation on food safety. It is also working on finalising a royal decree on self-control, including the reporting obligation and the general principles of traceability. Thus, the problem presented does not only concern the draft law, but must be read together with the royal decrees.

Colleague Hubert Brouns said that what lies ahead here is actually in the extension of the investigative committee "dioxin". This committee had decided that it was necessary to establish a traceability and registration policy for the entire food chain, from raw materials to foodstuffs. Collega Brouns was therefore pleased that the government took this into account and regretted a piece that was so long awaited. On behalf of the CD&V group, Mr Brouns also spoke in favour of an extension of the powers of the Federal Agency.

Colette Burgeon had some questions about the scope of some provisions and also had some difficulty with the great power given to the King to intervene in almost every activity within the food chain. This observation was also formulated by other colleagues in the committee. Furthermore, Mrs Burgeon criticized the second paragraph of Article 4. She found that the severity of the infringement was not taken into account. The fact that it was up to the King to determine the penalty for each of the offenses seemed to her not the right solution. There were also questions for clarification regarding the term "different organizational levels for an internal control system".

Also Mrs. Van de Casteele joined in part with Mrs. Burgeon’s criticism of the great power that this draft delegates to the King, of the very broad powers concerning every activity within the food chain. A slightly caricature sketch, and if one would interpret this literally, one could conclude, according to Ms. Van de Casteele, that also, for example, the organization of a dinner by an association must be subject to an admission, a recognition or a prior notification. This is to illustrate the extensive wording in the bill according to some committee members.

In response to the criticisms of colleague Brouns, the minister pointed out that the dioxin commission was especially concerned with what was living and what was wrong in the meat sector. The extension of the powers of the Agency is in fact nothing more than a logical evolution in the extension of the tasks of the Food Agency. The responsibility for the quality of the products, as the Minister stressed, still lies with the producers. The government is once again fully responsible for the leak control.

With regard to the penalties, the Government has decided not to follow the comments of the State Council and, by providing for a minimum and a maximum penalty, to give the judge the freedom to determine the penalty according to the severity of the offence. Then Mrs. Burgeon replicated, in conjunction with previous criticisms, that the judge still gets a lot too much bracelet. Mrs Avontroodt criticized that when imposing the penalty measure, more attention should be paid to the type of business, to the sectors being fished and to the size of the turnover of the companies, in order not to come to excessive penalties.

The Minister responded that the Royal Decree of 16 December 2002 provides for a centralization of administrative fines. That centralization, through a kind of information system, must precisely ensure that there are no disproportions or that a company in a particular sector is not imposed a very heavy penalty and another in the same sector a much lighter penalty. Finally, Ms. Burgeon also said that a fine of 300 euros is not very deterrent for a company with a very high turnover. So it was again about the problem of the ratio of the penalty to the turnover of the company, which was already highlighted by other colleagues. The minister replied that the file can always be delivered to the King’s Prosecutor, which can provide an answer to that problem.

All nine articles were unanimously adopted. At the same committee meeting, the entire bill was unanimously adopted.