 |  |  |  |
 |
|
|
Brussels, 22 January 2003
 Environment Committee warns of health risks to children from food additives |
|
|
The Environment Committee is calling for a review of the safety levels for food additives used in confectionery, soft drinks and snacks, which are consumed in large quantities by children and adolescents. It voted unanimously on Wednesday in favour of a report by Marit PAULSEN (ELDR, S), under the codecision procedure (first reading), supporting the Commission's proposal for a permanent ban on the use of the food additive E 425 konjac in jelly confectionery, in response to reports that jelly mini-cups - bite-sized cakes containing a small piece of fruit - containing the additive pose a risk of death by choking. But the committee is also calling in its report for a review, within three years, of the safety levels for all the food additives listed in Directive 95/2/EC, with proposals to amend them where necessary on the basis of their effects on children's health. Ms Paulsen pointed out this morning that the limit values are set for adults but that children are the biggest consumers of the food and drinks concerned. She says: "the Commission's proposal raises a very important and more far-reaching question of principle concerning additives which are frequently present in non-staple foods". The Commission representative said the rapporteur's points were very valid and were being addressed in proposals currently being drafted for a major revision of all food safety legislation. However, it first wanted to respond to the immediate danger posed by E 425 konjac. This substance is used as a thickening agent in confectionery and can cause choking when it fails to dissolve in the mouth. Eighteen deaths linked to this additive have been reported outside the EU and one death in the UK last year is under investigation. An amendment bringing forward the implementation of the ban in the Member States to six months after the legislation is published was also adopted. Ms Paulsen's amended version of the Commission proposal passes to the full Parliament in Strasbourg in February. 22.01.2003 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Press enquiries: |
| MEPs demand ban on advertising for breast implants |
|
|
The Environment Committee is urging the EU Member States to ban direct advertising to the public for breast implants or breast implant operations, as France has done. Since breast implants always entail risks, MEPs demanded that objective, non-commercial information be provided through national public health services instead. These demands were made as the committee adopted unanimously on Wednesday a non-legislative report by Catherine STIHLER (PES, UK) on a Commission paper on breast implants. While welcoming the Commission's proposals, MEPs voiced disappointment that they were purely advisory, i.e. not binding on the Member States. The committee said there was a need to regulate advertising in some Member States, which was fuelling the demand for implants without providing balanced information. Advertising for "cosmetic surgery" should carry clear bold health warnings. Moreover, the focus should be on promoting and securing acceptance of women as they actually are "rather than allowing unregulated advertising practices to impose an ideal conception of beauty as the norm". MEPs called for better information for patients, tracking and surveillance, quality control and research. Implants in women under 18 should be authorised only on medical grounds. The committee urged that details of breast implant operations be recorded by a compulsory National Breast Implant Registration system in each Member State, to enable both producers and patients to be traced. Finally, the cost of implants should include a pre-meeting with the surgeon, clear informed discussion of the implications of having implants as well as the alternatives, a cooling-off period of no less than four to six weeks, a detailed pre-implant case history, post-counselling and periodic review. This report will be on the agenda of the February plenary session in Strasbourg. 22.01.2003 Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Press enquiries: |
| Call to relax rules on non-EU citizens working in the Community |
|
|
MEPs are calling for greater flexibility regarding the right of non-EU nationals to enter, live and work in the European Union, arguing that this is in the EU's interests for both economic and social reasons. In a report by Anna TERRÓN i CUSÍ (PES, E) adopted on Tuesday under the consultation procedure, the Citizens' Rights Committee is urging changes to a proposed directive on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals who wish to take up paid employment or be self-employed in the EU. In its non-binding amendments, the committee calls for residence permits for workers and self-employed workers to be issued for a minimum of one year and for a spouse or partner of the first category also to be entitled to such a permit. The chief criterion for admitting third country nationals, say MEPs, should be that a vacancy cannot be filled from the domestic labour market within three weeks by other EU nationals or by non-EU nationals already legally resident in the Community. However, Member States should be allowed to adopt their own rules for vacancies in specific sectors that cannot be filled from the domestic labour market, although they should then consult employers’ and employees’ organisations. Once a permit has been granted and if the worker has a valid work contract, evidence that the job cannot be filled by others should not be needed in order to extend the permit. If a worker with a valid permit wishes to change jobs within the same line of work, approval should be granted automatically. Changing employment to another line of work should be allowed when permits are renewed. Moreover, permits should not be restricted to a particular region. The committee wants to shorten from six to three months the deadline for the authorities to decide on applications for permits. It is also seeking to cut from twelve to six months the period during which company employees outside the EU must have worked for their firm before they can be transferred to a branch of that firm within the EU. As soon as they have obtained a residence permit they should be allowed to work in any Member State. MEPs are recommending that Member States be allowed to grant non-EU nationals temporary residence permits, valid for six months, to seek employment or attend professional training courses targeted at obtaining employment. If an employee leaves his post within twelve months of taking up employment, his employer may fill the vacancy with another third country national without having to fulfil all the criteria again. On social benefits, the committee adopted an amendment calling for holders of residence permits to be granted access to education, social assistance for access to housing and the right to free legal aid. It also says residence permits should not be revoked before the end of a period of entitlement to unemployment benefit. Finally, the committee stresses that Member States should remain free to apply more favourable rules if they wish. 21.01.2003 Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs Press enquiries: |
| Should Parliament send a delegation to Iraq? |
|
|
The Foreign Affairs Committee discussed on Tuesday whether the European Parliament should send a delegation of MEPs to Iraq. Last week Parliament's Conference of Presidents held an initial debate on this matter but did not reach a decision, preferring to hold direct talks via video-conference on 30 January with the UN chief weapons inspector, Hans BLIX, after he has reported to the Security Council. If a decision is then taken to send a delegation, the delegates will first go to New York at Mr Blix's invitation to be briefed on the latest developments. "Sending a delegation assumes a direct meeting with Saddam Hussein, otherwise there is no point", said Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Elmar BROK (EPP-ED, D), who met Mr Blix in Brussels last Thursday. In Tuesday's discussion MEPs first highlighted the need to understand the situation on the ground. Several Members stressed the importance of meeting civil society representatives. "We are caught up in a war of propaganda and counter-propaganda", said Véronique DE KEYSER (PES, B). "We must come up with our own point of view, which is impossible amid the current tangle of contradictions." MEPs' views differed as to the impact the delegation might have. What political message should be transmitted in direct talks with Saddam Hussein? Several strategies were proposed. "Everything depends on our goals", said Jannis SAKELLARIOU (PES, D). "What I want above all is that there should be no war. Then that the regime should be disarmed", he added. Bob van den BOS (ELDR, NL) took the view that sending a delegation could make Mr Blix's work more difficult. "It would be extremely foolish for us to confer upon ourselves a diplomatic role and then set off for Iraq" he said, maintaining that this was not the role of the European Parliament. If, however, the idea of a delegation were to go ahead, several MEPs argued that it should carry a very firm message. "Our diplomatic move would have no credibility if we constantly said to Saddam 'No war!' ", contended Philippe MORILLON (EPP-ED, F). "We should follow the example of France: while determined to do everything possible to avoid war, it does not rule it out". Geoffrey VAN ORDEN (EPP-ED, UK) was of the opinion that those who did not deliver a strict message to Saddam risked encouraging war themselves. Several MEPs argued against any use of force. Efstratios KORAKAS (EUL/NGL, GR) said "No to war, at any price. Where will we go after Iraq? To Iran or North Korea?". However, according to Mr Brok, war seemed inevitable "unless Saddam Hussein leaves the country". In his view this was what Parliament should be aiming for: "to convince the Iraqi leader to leave Iraq so that a new regime could be set up. 21.01.2003 Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy Press enquiries: |
| Lloyd's of London - Commissioner Bolkestein on latest action against UK authorities |
|
|
The Petitions Committee was informed first-hand by Commissioner Frits BOLKESTEIN on Wednesday of the Commission’s latest decision to send a second letter of formal notice to the UK authorities concerning the UK government’s failure to adequately regulate the Lloyd's of London insurance market. The Commission has also sent a preliminary letter of inquiry to the UK government on the question of Equitas – the reinsurance vehicle set up to protect Lloyd's from further claims. Despite the UK introducing the new Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 (FSMA), the Commission still has ”residual concerns” over the compatibility of this Act with current EU directives on insolvency and this is the subject of the second letter of formal notice sent to the UK authorities. The central question for the Petitions Committee was whether the Commission should investigate previous UK legislation, relating to the regulation of the Lloyd's of London insurance market. Roy PERRY, vice-chairman of the Petitions Committee, said ”The inference has to be if the Commission is still unsatisfied with the FSMA, then previous UK legislation, i.e. the Lloyd's Act of 1982, could not have been compatible with the insolvency requirements of the first non-life insurance Directive 1973, and therefore UK governments are guilty of not properly transposing EU directives.” Commissioner BOLKESTEIN, in a lively exchange with Members of the committee, underlined that the Commission could not be expected to comment on previous national legislation, as this was outside its Treaty obligations. Members of the committee drew the strong inference from Commissioner Bolkestein’s remarks that previous UK legislation with regard to Lloyd's of London did not meet the requirements of EU legislation. If the UK government fails to respond satisfactorily to the second letter of formal notice, Mr Perry is considering calling upon Parliament to set up a Committee of Inquiry covering the issues raised in his report - namely all aspects of the application of the Insurance Directives with respect to Lloyd's from 1973 to 1995. Mr Perry's draft report is on the agenda for the March plenary session in Strasbourg. 22.01.2003 Committee on Petitions Press enquiries: |
| EU transport policy: "Council just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic" |
|
|
The outgoing and incoming Presidents of the Transport Council came under heavy fire in the Transport Committee on Tuesday when MEPs deplored the lack of progress in Council on more than 20 legislative proposals. Some Members felt the Council was "just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" and asked Danish Minister Fleming HANSEN and Greek Minister Christos VERELIS why so many dossiers were bogged down, some for more than three years. MEPs stressed they did not wish to criticise the two ministers personally but they still voiced deep concern at the general lack of movement within the Transport Council, arguing that legislative proposals on airport slots, working conditions for pilots and other cabin crew, public transport in urban areas, the second railway package, maritime safety and civil aviation needed to be tackled urgently. Mr VERELIS admitted there were serious problems in reaching agreements and he could not guarantee that the 20-plus outstanding issues would be resolved under the Greek Presidency. Nevertheless, some progress was announced on the Galileo project, the trans-continental civil aviation agreement, the railway package, insurance and air carriers and lastly the airport slots. The Minister also claimed progress had been made on the question of ecopoints, apparently unaware of the decision taken earlier in the day by the Transport Committee to reject the Council's recent accord on this matter. 21.02.2003 Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism Press enquiries: |
| Last updated: 22 January 2003 | Legal notice |