Allister welcomes Commission criticism of Republic in dioxin contamination
04 February 2009
In a late night debate in the European Parliament on the dioxin contamination in the Irish Republic, Traditional Unionist MEP, Jim Allister, voiced his anger at the resulting losses to innocent producers and processors in Northern Ireland and probed the Commission with searching questions about the failure of procedures in the Republic.
In responding to the lively debate Commissioner Vassiliou conceded that "a prudent Member State should have taken more stringent control measures." Earlier the Commissioner had revealed that the feedmill at the heart of the controversy had not been included in the establishments inspected earlier in 2008 during an EU audit in the Republic, when the list of plants to be visited was jointly drawn up by the Dublin Government and Brussels.
Mr Allister had alleged the plant had shown wanton disregard to good practice in using the PCB oil in its drying operation and questioned why the Dublin authorities had failed to maintain an adequate regime of inspection, given its obligation under the Food Hygiene Regulation to maintain a "risk based official control policy". Posing a series of specific questions to the Commission, the Ulster MEP made very clear where he thought the fault lay.
In the course of his remarks Mr Allister said:-
"With several farmers and a processing business in my constituency standing to lose millions, through no fault of their own, because contaminated feed, bought in good faith, was supplied from a feedmill where wanton disregard was shown to basic, never mind good, practice, then anger is permissible.
I have 8 questions for the Commission:
1. What is the history of the culpable recycling feedmill in terms of compliance with EU requirements. Is it a law onto itself, as has been suggested?
2. Did Millstream have a licence to use the oil in question, if not, was it not the responsibility of the member state to ensure such defiance of basic regulatory requirements was discovered and dealt with?
3. Was Millstream implementing a HACCP based risk analysis and an auto-control plan as required by EC 183/2005?
4. Is Commission satisfied with the level and frequency of inspections and supervision imposed by the member state on this plant, and its produce, given its obligations to have a risk-based official control plan? Was there negligence by the Irish authorities in enforcing the rigours of feed law and food safety?
5. In my constituency legitimate feedmills have to comply with rigorous controls and standards under quality assurance schemes, why was there no equivalent scrutiny of Millstream Recycling?
6. Was there reliance on self-certifying of safety of the feedstuffs and, if so, why, since such should only operate in small scale operations, not large operations like Millstream?
7. What is the precise legal basis upon which the Commission agreed a large payout to the Irish state, in that initially Commission spokesman, Michael Mann, said no such basis existed?
8. If the member state is found wanting will infringement proceedings result?"
