Proposition 51K1228

Projet de loi relatif au financement de l'Agence fédérale pour la Sécurité de la Chaîne alimentaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 22, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

food inspection consumer protection veterinary inspection public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V Ecolo LE 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 ¶

July 15, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ladies and gentlemen, let me briefly refer to this bill. As I have been able to say in the committee, there are several positive points to be pointed out.

First, it is true that the Act of 4 February 2000 establishing the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain resulted in the integration of different services responsible for several aspects of the food chain, characterized by one or more specific financing schemes. It was therefore appropriate, for the sake of coherence, to harmonise these divergent systems.

Then, by establishing a link between self-financing and self-control through contributions and remuneration, a real financial stimulus is created.

Finally, the detailed application of these systems will be discussed with the sectors - which is in itself innovative in this area - through a consultation structure: the advisory committee referred to in Article 7 of the Act of 4 February 2000. The possibility of establishing a specific provision for the financing of operational costs related to the management of unforeseen incidents in the food chain is also of great importance. Indeed, in the recent past, operating costs were financed by the federal authority. In this regard, we recall the difficulties encountered during the dioxin crisis.

Finally, it is right to mention the removal of the provision that provided for the fixing of offices of remuneration and the doubling of amounts due in the event of an infringement.

I also recall the need for an accredited body to recognize the level of organizational control of the operator’s activity. Important measures have already been taken in terms of self-control. The system remains to be perfected, which obviously requires a real will of the different parties. But we remain optimistic. I thank you for your attention.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me briefly refer to this bill. As I have been able to say in the committee, there are several positive points to be pointed out.

First, it is true that the Act of 4 February 2000 establishing the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain resulted in the integration of different services responsible for several aspects of the food chain, characterized by one or more specific financing schemes. It was therefore appropriate, for the sake of coherence, to harmonise these divergent systems.

Then, by establishing a link between self-financing and self-control through contributions and remuneration, a real financial stimulus is created.

Finally, the detailed application of these systems will be discussed with the sectors - which is in itself innovative in this area - through a consultation structure: the advisory committee referred to in Article 7 of the Act of 4 February 2000. The possibility of establishing a specific provision for the financing of operational costs related to the management of unforeseen incidents in the food chain is also of great importance. Indeed, in the recent past, operating costs were financed by the federal authority. In this regard, we recall the difficulties encountered during the dioxin crisis.

Finally, it is right to mention the removal of the provision that provided for the fixing of offices of remuneration and the doubling of amounts due in the event of an infringement.

I also recall the need for an accredited body to recognize the level of organizational control of the operator’s activity. Important measures have already been taken in terms of self-control. The system remains to be perfected, which obviously requires a real will of the different parties. But we remain optimistic. I thank you for your attention.

I would also like to answer the questions that have just been asked and which have not yet been answered.

I would also like to answer the questions that have just been asked and which have not yet been answered.

First, with regard to SPF, it would be wise to ask whether the resources that would be allocated to AFSCA would be sufficient. But it should be remembered that already today, some 66 million public funds are allocated to AFSCA. This is not a significant sum.

First, with regard to SPF, it would be wise to ask whether the resources that would be allocated to AFSCA would be sufficient. But it should be remembered that already today, some 66 million public funds are allocated to AFSCA. This is not a significant sum.

Then it was said, “Mr. Minister, you risk running for the competitive position on costs.” I have a double difficulty in answering this question, primarily because the exact methodology has not yet been established. I will come back. Secondly, because the international “bench marking” to which it has been called, in particular on the banks of CD&V and to which I said it is ⁇ sensitive – so I do not want to elude this debate – has not yet taken place; especially since we are experiencing a difficulty of European order.

Then it was said, “Mr. Minister, you risk running for the competitive position on costs.” I have a double difficulty in answering this question, primarily because the exact methodology has not yet been established. I will come back. Secondly, because the international “bench marking” to which it has been called, in particular on the banks of CD&V and to which I said it is ⁇ sensitive – so I do not want to elude this debate – has not yet taken place; especially since we are experiencing a difficulty of European order.

Indeed, at the European level, at the moment, we do not have – in my opinion, it is a mistake on the part of Europe – any form of harmonisation in regards to the settlement of these conditions. It follows that we are facing a real mosaic of provisions, since we are in a subsidiary law that does not allow us today to have a clear view of the thing, which is why I ask for some time for this "bench marking". I will return before the committee and in plenary session if necessary to answer these questions.

Indeed, at the European level, at the moment, we do not have – in my opinion, it is a mistake on the part of Europe – any form of harmonisation in regards to the settlement of these conditions. It follows that we are facing a real mosaic of provisions, since we are in a subsidiary law that does not allow us today to have a clear view of the thing, which is why I ask for some time for this "bench marking". I will return before the committee and in plenary session if necessary to answer these questions.

Another question was about remuneration. It is said: "Mr. Minister, as regards the remuneration, be careful, because the cost of the remuneration will be calculated in particular on administrative personnel." In terms of determining the cost of remuneration, we will even look for factors that take into account, in particular, the baremic scale to which we are attached and, in particular, the people who occupy the highest position in this baremic scale, knowing that antiquity costs expensive when it is reflected on the remuneration.

Another question was about remuneration. It is said: "Mr. Minister, as regards the remuneration, be careful, because the cost of the remuneration will be calculated in particular on administrative personnel." In terms of determining the cost of remuneration, we will even look for factors that take into account, in particular, the baremic scale to which we are attached and, in particular, the people who occupy the highest position in this baremic scale, knowing that antiquity costs expensive when it is reflected on the remuneration.

Unfortunately, this view is caricatural. Indeed, according to my information, the way in which, today already and therefore tomorrow too, the cost is calculated, is based on the average cost of personnel actually on the ground. What kind of personnel is this? Inspectors and Inspectors. As a reminder, the inspectors are levels A, the inspectors, the former levels 2, now levels B. It is on this basis that the costs are operated.

Unfortunately, this view is caricatural. Indeed, according to my information, the way in which, today already and therefore tomorrow too, the cost is calculated, is based on the average cost of personnel actually on the ground. What kind of personnel is this? Inspectors and Inspectors. As a reminder, the inspectors are levels A, the inspectors, the former levels 2, now levels B. It is on this basis that the costs are operated.

Other questions were related to transparency: "Mr. Minister, do you have the means to ensure that the actual costs will not jeopardize the competitive position of all the sectors concerned? Do you have any guarantees to clarify the debate?"We have a business plan in the AFSCA that actually provides for an evaluation in the timeline.

Other questions were related to transparency: "Mr. Minister, do you have the means to ensure that the actual costs will not jeopardize the competitive position of all the sectors concerned? Do you have any guarantees to clarify the debate?"We have a business plan in the AFSCA that actually provides for an evaluation in the timeline.

It is an assessment that will be modulated in particular according to the fixing of the levels of the amounts to be returned to the Agency.

It is an assessment that will be modulated in particular according to the fixing of the levels of the amounts to be returned to the Agency.

In the committee, the following questions were asked to me:

In the committee, the following questions were asked to me:

– “Mr. Minister” – this question is important – “Will you take self-control into account?” And we will make sure to start taking a number of financial arrangements without self-control. Then, as the latter is implemented, the burden for companies that have made the effort of self-control will be reduced.

– “Mr. Minister” – this question is important – “Will you take self-control into account?” And we will make sure to start taking a number of financial arrangements without self-control. Then, as the latter is implemented, the burden for companies that have made the effort of self-control will be reduced.

“Mr. Minister, when will we be able to have this kind of system of communicating vessels according to which we will reduce the pressure exerted on companies that will begin self-control?” There are about 183,000 checkpoints to be carried out and it is estimated that it will take a year to a year and a half to get to do so. Therefore, we cannot reasonably put this system in place before a year and a half. In my opinion, the worst thing for the industry would be not to have a realistic horizon.

“Mr. Minister, when will we be able to have this kind of system of communicating vessels according to which we will reduce the pressure exerted on companies that will begin self-control?” There are about 183,000 checkpoints to be carried out and it is estimated that it will take a year to a year and a half to get to do so. Therefore, we cannot reasonably put this system in place before a year and a half. In my opinion, the worst thing for the industry would be not to have a realistic horizon.

- "Mr. Minister, how will we guarantee self-control?" A royal decree was already taken in 2003. It sets a number of rules. The question remains whether self-control will be carried out on the basis of the approval of companies. In other words, will companies be accepted? and yes. Who will make the approval? The agency itself. In fact, it must do the “fine tuning” of these controls.

- "Mr. Minister, how will we guarantee self-control?" A royal decree was already taken in 2003. It sets a number of rules. The question remains whether self-control will be carried out on the basis of the approval of companies. In other words, will companies be accepted? and yes. Who will make the approval? The agency itself. In fact, it must do the “fine tuning” of these controls.

There is still a question about the problem of costs as such: how will you fix the methodology of load distribution?

There is still a question about the problem of costs as such: how will you fix the methodology of load distribution?

We start from a system, the current one, fundamentally unequal and unfair between sectors. I remind you that we are starting from a system that is based on three feet:

We start from a system, the current one, fundamentally unequal and unfair between sectors. I remind you that we are starting from a system that is based on three feet:

- the IEV foot where 100% were funded by the sectors. Who was paying? The slaughterhouse sector, the cutting sector and the agricultural sector; - the foot of agricultural services, within the ministry. Those were funded on an equal basis: "fifty-fifty" for the sector and the public service; - the foot of the Food Inspection. There, we were dealing with an unfair system: 100% were supported by public authorities, so that there was no contribution from the sector. So we decided to make a calculation: what is the allocation that, in this circumstance, was given by the public authorities? We reached around 60 million, or about 6 million below the indexed figure that I just quoted. From this figure of 60 million, we decide to take 1 euro for 1 euro. On this basis (excluding ESB test), the sector was forced to give 1 euro extra.

- the IEV foot where 100% were funded by the sectors. Who was paying? The slaughterhouse sector, the cutting sector and the agricultural sector; - the foot of agricultural services, within the ministry. Those were funded on an equal basis: "fifty-fifty" for the sector and the public service; - the foot of the Food Inspection. There, we were dealing with an unfair system: 100% were supported by public authorities, so that there was no contribution from the sector. So we decided to make a calculation: what is the allocation that, in this circumstance, was given by the public authorities? We reached around 60 million, or about 6 million below the indexed figure that I just quoted. From this figure of 60 million, we decide to take 1 euro for 1 euro. On this basis (excluding ESB test), the sector was forced to give 1 euro extra.

Another question: how will this burden of the sector be distributed?

Another question: how will this burden of the sector be distributed?

Criteria will be taken into account. Three criteria have been advanced. These criteria are added value, the number of control points and the gross operating balance, a rather esoteric denomination, which essentially takes into account the value integrated through the employees that make up the sector.

Criteria will be taken into account. Three criteria have been advanced. These criteria are added value, the number of control points and the gross operating balance, a rather esoteric denomination, which essentially takes into account the value integrated through the employees that make up the sector.

Criticism has already been expressed on these criteria.

Criticism has already been expressed on these criteria.

First criticism: "Mr. Minister, when you talk about employees as components of the value of this sector, you forget the self-employed!"We then tried to do the exercise from the self-employed: it is very complex. In particular, we must take into account the ambiguous situation in some subsectors: I think of the horeca where, between the different service providers, we have ambiguities related in particular to the family function.

First criticism: "Mr. Minister, when you talk about employees as components of the value of this sector, you forget the self-employed!"We then tried to do the exercise from the self-employed: it is very complex. In particular, we must take into account the ambiguous situation in some subsectors: I think of the horeca where, between the different service providers, we have ambiguities related in particular to the family function.

We have not reached the end of our problem. However, this is a question that is often asked, among other things in relation to the whole question of the perception of social contributions. But we could not reach the end of the reasoning.

We have not reached the end of our problem. However, this is a question that is often asked, among other things in relation to the whole question of the perception of social contributions. But we could not reach the end of the reasoning.

Second critic: "Mr. Minister, please, how can you impose that the number of checkpoints be taken into account? It is, however, quite unequal: it is the public authorities that control, so it is they who should assume the number of control points.”

Second critic: "Mr. Minister, please, how can you impose that the number of checkpoints be taken into account? It is, however, quite unequal: it is the public authorities that control, so it is they who should assume the number of control points.”

and no. Why Why ? Because among the different sectors involved, some sectors require more point controls than others. This criterion must be taken into account.

and no. Why Why ? Because among the different sectors involved, some sectors require more point controls than others. This criterion must be taken into account.

The last element, the agricultural sector – I heard in particular the Boerenbond about it – says: “Mr. Minister, be careful: it is the added value that, for us, is the main point of the ways of distributing the burden. In fact, some people make more profit than others.”

The last element, the agricultural sector – I heard in particular the Boerenbond about it – says: “Mr. Minister, be careful: it is the added value that, for us, is the main point of the ways of distributing the burden. In fact, some people make more profit than others.”

So we tried to make a modulation between these three criteria. It is true that by looking at who pays what, we arrive at re-balances. Some sectors pay nothing: the horeca sector or the distribution sector are very little demanded. Now they are in logic.

So we tried to make a modulation between these three criteria. It is true that by looking at who pays what, we arrive at re-balances. Some sectors pay nothing: the horeca sector or the distribution sector are very little demanded. Now they are in logic.

We wanted to make the choice of going to search — but we are at theoretical work since the royal orders will have to be negotiated with the sector» — to more or less 33% charges on each of the criteria that has just been advanced. I will conclude by giving again one or the other information related to the questions asked recently and which I find not able to elude now.

We wanted to make the choice of going to search — but we are at theoretical work since the royal orders will have to be negotiated with the sector» — to more or less 33% charges on each of the criteria that has just been advanced. I will conclude by giving again one or the other information related to the questions asked recently and which I find not able to elude now.

In particular, as regards the actual weight of the burden that will be distributed to the sector. It is said: "Mr. Minister, be careful, for the reserve funds that will allow to destroy the material that could put health at risk tomorrow come from the state."

In particular, as regards the actual weight of the burden that will be distributed to the sector. It is said: "Mr. Minister, be careful, for the reserve funds that will allow to destroy the material that could put health at risk tomorrow come from the state."

So far, and since 1999, it is the state that pays. But be careful, this is very expensive for the state. Take the only example of bird plague, I will not talk about anything else. The cost of bird plague is approximately 10 million euros. It is the burden of destruction and transport. Even before I became the minister in charge of animal welfare and public health, the Council of Ministers had decided that a structural solution was needed. The Minister of Budget and all the ministers told the Minister in charge of these funds planned to pay the destruction and transport bill that they would no longer accept this charge.

So far, and since 1999, it is the state that pays. But be careful, this is very expensive for the state. Take the only example of bird plague, I will not talk about anything else. The cost of bird plague is approximately 10 million euros. It is the burden of destruction and transport. Even before I became the minister in charge of animal welfare and public health, the Council of Ministers had decided that a structural solution was needed. The Minister of Budget and all the ministers told the Minister in charge of these funds planned to pay the destruction and transport bill that they would no longer accept this charge.

Le danger pour le secteur eût été que l'État dise à un moment donné: "We do not pay anymore. Now you have to do it yourself."So I provided for a measure based on the principle that everyone should pay the same. The government and the industry would pay 1 euro each. The full calculation has not yet been made because in fact Europe is willing to contribute 50% of the global amount. That means that the sector would only have to pay 25%.

Le danger pour le secteur eût été que l'État dise à un moment donné: "We do not pay anymore. Now you have to do it yourself."So I provided for a measure based on the principle that everyone should pay the same. The government and the industry would pay 1 euro each. The full calculation has not yet been made because in fact Europe is willing to contribute 50% of the global amount. That means that the sector would only have to pay 25%.

This answer seems to satisfy me more than the answer of your predecessor at the time. Mr. Minister, I had to ask a lot of questions because we received little information. You must admit that we actually received very little information. I myself have to go looking for information and then it might be that certain information is a little distorted, I admit that. Their

On the other hand, we continue to say that we regret that you have another kind of framework law and that so many powers in this draft are assigned to the King. I have already accused this and I think we should continue to accuse it. After all, I have the impression that if we get little information and if Parliament is put out of play, we can be suspicious. Their

You gave me the answers I expected. However, you did not answer one question. I have also submitted an amendment on this, which concerns the operational reserve.

Mr. Minister, you can’t make it possible to allow sectors to partially turn up for crises that you have no control and no responsibility or blame for. To pay for it is fundamentally unfair. I also think that this could affect the competitiveness and also the export position of our companies in relation to overseas. I also hope that this amendment can be honestly supported by the majority. I also think that this is in the philosophy of what you want and I hope it can get through.

This answer seems to satisfy me more than the answer of your predecessor at the time. Mr. Minister, I had to ask a lot of questions because we received little information. You must admit that we actually received very little information. I myself have to go looking for information and then it might be that certain information is a little distorted, I admit that. Their

On the other hand, we continue to say that we regret that you have another kind of framework law and that so many powers in this draft are assigned to the King. I have already accused this and I think we should continue to accuse it. After all, I have the impression that if we get little information and if Parliament is put out of play, we can be suspicious. Their

You gave me the answers I expected. However, you did not answer one question. I have also submitted an amendment on this, which concerns the operational reserve.

Mr. Minister, you can’t make it possible to allow sectors to partially turn up for crises that you have no control and no responsibility or blame for. To pay for it is fundamentally unfair. I also think that this could affect the competitiveness and also the export position of our companies in relation to overseas. I also hope that this amendment can be honestly supported by the majority. I also think that this is in the philosophy of what you want and I hope it can get through.

I have to apologize because I actually answered your question. I said that in connection with the reserve fund the operating costs have so far been paid, only by the government. This has only existed since 1999, before it was distributed between government and sectors. I don’t know to what extent, but it was at least so. Their

I tell you now that Europe is willing to pay 50 percent of the operational costs. We say that for what remains, we are willing to pay half. You say it’s unreasonable, but you can’t always pay for everything. That is our position.

I have to apologize because I actually answered your question. I said that in connection with the reserve fund the operating costs have so far been paid, only by the government. This has only existed since 1999, before it was distributed between government and sectors. I don’t know to what extent, but it was at least so. Their

I tell you now that Europe is willing to pay 50 percent of the operational costs. We say that for what remains, we are willing to pay half. You say it’s unreasonable, but you can’t always pay for everything. That is our position.