C 155 E/210 Official Journal of the European Union EN 3.7.2003 (2003/C 155 E/230) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0063/03 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission (22 January 2003) Subject: Food Law Enforcement Practitioners (FLEP) 1. To what extent does the Food Law Enforcement Practitioners group (FLEP) influence European Commission policy in food safety matters? In the minutes of the meeting of the Netherlands food inspection service (KvW) on 19 September 2001 in The Hague it was said of the FLEP that: The original aim of the FLEP was to gain an understanding of the organisation of the inspection of food in different countries … Subsequently it involved the exchange of information between countries and advising the European Commission … Mr Wolfs responded that many of the FLEP’s recommendations were taken on board by the European Commission and that the FLEP had a great deal of influence on the programmes coordinated. 2. Is the European Commission aware that it is impossible for the European Parliament and national associations in the food and catering sector to obtain information on the matters being discussed in this informal club? 3. Does the Commission consider that it is healthy for an informal consultative body to have so much influence on its decision-making when the general public, politicians and interest groups are denied access to information about the relevant meetings? 4. Does the Commission intend to make this information more accessible? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (24 February 2003) 1. The Commission has had only sporadic correspondence with the Food Law Enforcement Practitioners group (FLEP) and considers this association in the same way as any other association or group with interests in the field of food safety. For the preparation of the co-ordinated control programme of foodstuffs for 2001, the Commission received a number of suggestions from FLEP, some of which, after discussion with the Member States within the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, were taken into consideration. For the co-ordinated control programmes for 2003, as for 2002, no suggestions have been received from FLEP and the main areas of control activities have been selected from a list of priorities proposed by the Commission and the Member States. 2. As mentioned above, the Commission had only sporadic contacts with the FLEP group and, therefore, is not aware of the activities and of the matters discussed by this association. 3. The Commission places great importance on public consultation and information concerning all Community activities, particularly in the food safety area. In this regard, Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), clearly states that ‘there shall be open and transparent public consultation directly or through representative bodies, during the preparation, evaluation and revision of food law …’. Therefore, the Commission consults widely all stakeholders concerned on its proposals in an early stage of preparation and makes available on its web-site information on all the Community activities in the food safety area, including summary reports of all the meetings of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. 3.7.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155 E/211 4. It is the intention of the Commission to make every effort to develop further its communication and consultation policy aiming at ensuring, in an equal manner, a larger participation of citizens, consumers and stakeholders in the Community activities in the field of food safety as well as animal health and welfare, plant health, etc. The Commission is currently preparing a concrete proposal establishing a formal consultation procedure at European level and creating a Consultation Committee on the food chain and animal health. (1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002. (2003/C 155 E/231) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0074/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (23 January 2003) Subject: Lack of a European register of medical errors committed by people who successively work in different states 1. Has the Commission heard that one of the findings of the assessment of five years’ experience of the Dutch Individual Health Care Professions Act, which is intended to provide patients with information about the expertise and qualifications of health professionals, is that people who have been punished abroad for making professional errors can exercise their profession without any restriction in the Netherlands because the disciplinary measures taken in their countries of origin are not recorded in the public register of medical practitioners provided for by the Individual Health Care Professions Act, which records any disciplinary measures imposed by the Dutch Ministry of Health? 2. Does the Commission share the fear expressed by the research bureau ZonMW, which performed the assessment, that, particularly after enlargement, freedom of establishment in the field of health care within the EU will result in more foreign medical practitioners coming to the present EU Member States and that additional measures are required to ensure that patients can ascertain whether they are also adequately protected against inexpert service provision by these practitioners? 3. Does the Commission have any information about similar experiences in Member States other than the Netherlands where medical errors can be committed because people are working whose past record in the medical profession remains unknown? 4. Are there wide variations in the ways in which medical errors and punishments for them are recorded in the various present and future EU Member States? Are there Member States where no register is kept or where the public do not yet have access to registers of errors? Will there be any change in this respect in the near future? 5. What view does the Commission take of the researchers’ proposal that a European information system should be set up by means of which the qualifications of medical practitioners who have previously worked in another Member State and/or been trained there can easily be checked? Will the Commission take measures to bring this about? Source: ‘De Volkskrant’ (Dutch newspaper), 21 and 23 December 2002. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (25 February 2003) 1. Member States are competent for legal provisions as to good character or good repute including provisions for disciplinary action in respect of serious professional misconduct or conviction of criminal offences. The directives on professional recognition covering medical professions and professions allied to medicine allow host Member States to require proof of good repute and related information from the home Member State, with due respect for confidentiality and data protection rules. Host Member States can insist on obtaining this information before granting recognition. 2. Community law, including the above-mentioned obligation, will be applied in all new Member States..