iVOD / 170637
本逐字稿內容由 AI 自動生成，可能包含錯誤、遺漏或誤譯之處。請使用者務必與原始影片音訊內容交叉比對，以確保資訊正確性。另可參考立法院日後釋出的正式公報以取得最終權威版本。
林月琴 @
| Start Time | End Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:00,000 | 00:00:11,000 | 主席 麻煩石部長 |
| 00:00:11,000 | 00:00:12,000 | 主席 石中良部長 |
| 00:00:12,000 | 00:00:18,000 | 部長 這次中央的責任 我們大概一向都不會逃避 |
| 00:00:18,000 | 00:00:24,000 | 因為立法院已多次安排相關報告跟質詢 |
| 00:00:24,000 | 00:00:29,000 | 而且院長也於7月14號到院 進行專案報告並備詢 |
| 00:00:29,000 | 00:00:32,000 | 可是我要提醒的是 最近藍白兩黨的政治攻防 |
| 00:00:32,000 | 00:00:37,000 | 幾乎把地方政府從食品安全衛生管理法裡邊刪掉了 |
| 00:00:37,000 | 00:00:42,000 | 台中市長盧秀燕甚至指控你中央不准地方查場 |
| 00:00:42,000 | 00:00:45,000 | 民眾黨則指控說中央甩鍋地方 |
| 00:00:45,000 | 00:00:47,000 | 可是法律不是這樣寫的啊 |
| 00:00:47,000 | 00:00:50,000 | 今天我們要逐條來看 到底地方政府依法有什麼權利 |
| 00:00:50,000 | 00:00:53,000 | 負什麼責 實際做了什麼 |
| 00:00:53,000 | 00:00:55,000 | 部長 三法第二條是不是明定 |
| 00:00:55,000 | 00:00:59,000 | 在直轄市主管機關就是直轄市政府 |
| 00:00:59,000 | 00:01:02,000 | 那請問部長 主管機關的意思是什麼 |
| 00:01:02,000 | 00:01:05,000 | 所以台中市政府不是中央的協辦機關 |
| 00:01:05,000 | 00:01:08,000 | 不是受中央委託才有權查場 |
| 00:01:08,000 | 00:01:11,000 | 而是法律直接規定的主管機關 對不對 |
| 00:01:11,000 | 00:01:14,000 | 沒有錯 第二條事實上是這樣明定 |
| 00:01:14,000 | 00:01:18,000 | 所以我們今天不是中央要不要把權力交給台中 |
| 00:01:18,000 | 00:01:21,000 | 而是台中根本就是依法有權 |
| 00:01:21,000 | 00:01:23,000 | 而且也是依法有責 |
| 00:01:23,000 | 00:01:25,000 | 國民黨近期反覆主張 |
| 00:01:25,000 | 00:01:29,000 | 中央施壓台中不要查場 不要公布留下 |
| 00:01:29,000 | 00:01:32,000 | 不要下架 委員還稱這個是事實 |
| 00:01:32,000 | 00:01:35,000 | 我現在有的公開資料顯示 |
| 00:01:35,000 | 00:01:38,000 | 7月1號 因為6月30號通報 |
| 00:01:38,000 | 00:01:41,000 | 7月1號中央跟台中已經共同查場了 |
| 00:01:41,000 | 00:01:43,000 | 怎麼說中央你不准他去查場 |
| 00:01:43,000 | 00:01:45,000 | 而且部長 依第41條 |
| 00:01:45,000 | 00:01:48,000 | 台中市要進入中聯查場抽驗 |
| 00:01:48,000 | 00:01:50,000 | 調閱生產及出貨資料 |
| 00:01:50,000 | 00:01:53,000 | 需要食藥署主案批准嗎 |
| 00:01:53,000 | 00:01:58,000 | 地方作業到底怎麼進行 要你們批嗎 |
| 00:01:58,000 | 00:02:02,000 | 跟委員說明 在食安法裡面 |
| 00:02:02,000 | 00:02:06,000 | 把中央跟所有的食安都是中央跟地方 |
| 00:02:06,000 | 00:02:10,000 | 要一起合作 那麼也在食安法裡面去明定的 |
| 00:02:10,000 | 00:02:13,000 | 所以要你們批准他才可以去查場嗎 |
| 00:02:13,000 | 00:02:15,000 | 食品查核跟管制也明定 |
| 00:02:15,000 | 00:02:18,000 | 這個地方的主管機關可以進入 |
| 00:02:18,000 | 00:02:23,000 | 進行現場的查核及抽樣的檢驗 |
| 00:02:23,000 | 00:02:27,000 | 所以這個是在食安法11條的第一款 |
| 00:02:27,000 | 00:02:28,000 | 就講得很清楚了 |
| 00:02:28,000 | 00:02:31,000 | 就是說本來就授權地方進場查核 |
| 00:02:31,000 | 00:02:34,000 | 抽驗產品 調閱生產及出貨資料 |
| 00:02:34,000 | 00:02:37,000 | 必要時還可以命令停工 停售跟封存 |
| 00:02:37,000 | 00:02:39,000 | 產品確認如果違規後 |
| 00:02:39,000 | 00:02:42,000 | 地方還可以命令業者回收 |
| 00:02:42,000 | 00:02:44,000 | 銷毀公布違法的資訊 |
| 00:02:44,000 | 00:02:47,000 | 並依法來做裁罰 |
| 00:02:47,000 | 00:02:49,000 | 所以既然不需要中央批准 |
| 00:02:49,000 | 00:02:52,000 | 那麼所謂的中央不准地方查場 |
| 00:02:52,000 | 00:02:53,000 | 在法律到底是什麼 |
| 00:02:53,000 | 00:02:56,000 | 中央有沒有依法律做成一份 |
| 00:02:56,000 | 00:02:58,000 | 你有沒有一個正式公文給他說 |
| 00:02:58,000 | 00:03:03,000 | 表示說禁止台中要依法行使41條的權限 |
| 00:03:03,000 | 00:03:04,000 | 說他不可以做 有嗎 |
| 00:03:04,000 | 00:03:06,000 | 你有拿公文給他嗎 |
| 00:03:06,000 | 00:03:07,000 | 中央沒有這樣的 |
| 00:03:07,000 | 00:03:10,000 | 所以我今天要做的一件事情就是要釐清事實 |
| 00:03:10,000 | 00:03:12,000 | 我們才能夠回到就事論事 |
| 00:03:12,000 | 00:03:14,000 | 沒有這件事的公文記錄 |
| 00:03:14,000 | 00:03:16,000 | 就不能夠把中央跟地方 |
| 00:03:16,000 | 00:03:18,000 | 因為為什麼有這個 |
| 00:03:18,000 | 00:03:20,000 | 中央跟地方因為7月 |
| 00:03:20,000 | 00:03:23,000 | 中央在7月4號開專家會議的時候 |
| 00:03:23,000 | 00:03:26,000 | 認為中聯無復工的可能性 |
| 00:03:26,000 | 00:03:28,000 | 所以7月5號不用查場 |
| 00:03:28,000 | 00:03:30,000 | 根本就不要讓他復工了 |
| 00:03:30,000 | 00:03:32,000 | 那只是因為這一次的意見 |
| 00:03:32,000 | 00:03:34,000 | 就間諜欣喜地說 |
| 00:03:34,000 | 00:03:36,000 | 地方的法定查場 |
| 00:03:36,000 | 00:03:39,000 | 事實上是在中央要授權 |
| 00:03:39,000 | 00:03:41,000 | 簡直是莫名其妙 |
| 00:03:41,000 | 00:03:46,000 | 所以我覺得部長台中市即便宣稱中央施壓 |
| 00:03:46,000 | 00:03:50,000 | 可是台中市在本案中實際跟中央進場 |
| 00:03:50,000 | 00:03:52,000 | 顯示台中市政府確實知道 |
| 00:03:52,000 | 00:03:55,000 | 我們的食安法第41條 |
| 00:03:55,000 | 00:03:57,000 | 直接授權地方的權責 |
| 00:03:57,000 | 00:03:59,000 | 可是這個時間 |
| 00:03:59,000 | 00:04:02,000 | 台北市的市長蔣萬佑主張 |
| 00:04:02,000 | 00:04:05,000 | 中央應全面檢驗其他的油品上游 |
| 00:04:05,000 | 00:04:08,000 | 生產源頭跟供應的業者 |
| 00:04:08,000 | 00:04:12,000 | 不應該僅仰賴業者的自主通報 |
| 00:04:12,000 | 00:04:14,000 | 不過這兩種說法 |
| 00:04:14,000 | 00:04:16,000 | 台中跟台北市的說法放在一起 |
| 00:04:16,000 | 00:04:19,000 | 正好顯示兩個重要的六都的首長 |
| 00:04:19,000 | 00:04:21,000 | 對法規各取所需 |
| 00:04:21,000 | 00:04:22,000 | 只看自己想要看的 |
| 00:04:22,000 | 00:04:24,000 | 唯一的共同點就是 |
| 00:04:24,000 | 00:04:27,000 | 不想依法論法來討論地方的責任 |
| 00:04:27,000 | 00:04:32,000 | 部長依食安法第2條第5條第7條第41條完整的說明 |
| 00:04:32,000 | 00:04:35,000 | 業者依法應主動通報地方 |
| 00:04:35,000 | 00:04:39,000 | 但業者隱匿延遲跟通報失靈的時候 |
| 00:04:39,000 | 00:04:43,000 | 地方主管機關原本應該負哪些監督抽驗 |
| 00:04:43,000 | 00:04:47,000 | 摧查流向及進場管制責任 |
| 00:04:47,000 | 00:04:52,000 | 我想在食安法裡面就如同剛剛委員所提到的 |
| 00:04:52,000 | 00:04:56,000 | 第5條的責任還有第41條這個都明定 |
| 00:04:56,000 | 00:04:59,000 | 那麼他應該要進行的相關的查核 |
| 00:04:59,000 | 00:05:03,000 | 那麼發現有違反相關的條文 |
| 00:05:03,000 | 00:05:06,000 | 包含違反第8條第15條 |
| 00:05:06,000 | 00:05:08,000 | 那麼第16條的規定 |
| 00:05:08,000 | 00:05:12,000 | 他就可以依這個41條的授權 |
| 00:05:12,000 | 00:05:16,000 | 做暫停作業或者是停止販賣 |
| 00:05:16,000 | 00:05:20,000 | 封存的這一些法律的採取的行動 |
| 00:05:20,000 | 00:05:21,000 | 所以部長 |
| 00:05:21,000 | 00:05:24,000 | 那麼接獲通報也是一樣 |
| 00:05:24,000 | 00:05:26,000 | 那麼他也有一些這個可以 |
| 00:05:26,000 | 00:05:28,000 | 對而且依第52條 |
| 00:05:28,000 | 00:05:31,000 | 有哪一級政府要做成回收 |
| 00:05:31,000 | 00:05:33,000 | 銷毀跟公布處分 |
| 00:05:33,000 | 00:05:35,000 | 而且甚至依第55條 |
| 00:05:35,000 | 00:05:37,000 | 又有哪一級政府要負責裁罰 |
| 00:05:37,000 | 00:05:38,000 | 都是地方政府 |
| 00:05:38,000 | 00:05:41,000 | 所以不能因為業者沒有通報 |
| 00:05:41,000 | 00:05:44,000 | 就把地方政府應有的所有的主動監測 |
| 00:05:44,000 | 00:05:46,000 | 跟第一線執法的責任一併推回中央 |
| 00:05:46,000 | 00:05:50,000 | 不能夠自己想看哪一條法條來做 |
| 00:05:50,000 | 00:05:52,000 | 而應該要所有的要依法 |
| 00:05:52,000 | 00:05:55,000 | 部長台中市政府說我造謠了 |
| 00:05:55,000 | 00:05:57,000 | 可是針點其實很簡單 |
| 00:05:57,000 | 00:05:59,000 | 我問的是中聯這一家 |
| 00:05:59,000 | 00:06:02,000 | 大型油廠到底抽驗幾次驗了什麼 |
| 00:06:02,000 | 00:06:05,000 | 結果台中市鬼打牆的回答的是 |
| 00:06:05,000 | 00:06:07,000 | 卻是全市查了多少家 |
| 00:06:07,000 | 00:06:08,000 | 抽驗多少件 |
| 00:06:08,000 | 00:06:12,000 | 現在又說中央專案名單沒有中聯 |
| 00:06:12,000 | 00:06:17,000 | 那台中市議員查閱市府的公開資料指出 |
| 00:06:17,000 | 00:06:20,000 | 中聯從111年到114年 |
| 00:06:20,000 | 00:06:23,000 | 共查我們的稽查了6次 |
| 00:06:23,000 | 00:06:27,000 | 可真正抽取油品送進實驗室 |
| 00:06:27,000 | 00:06:30,000 | 查驗的只有113年4月26號一次 |
| 00:06:30,000 | 00:06:34,000 | 之後多是在查廠房的環境 |
| 00:06:34,000 | 00:06:36,000 | 作業流程跟文件資料 |
| 00:06:36,000 | 00:06:39,000 | 部長中央掌握的是中聯近年的稽查 |
| 00:06:39,000 | 00:06:41,000 | 抽樣跟檢驗的紀錄 |
| 00:06:41,000 | 00:06:42,000 | 是否跟上述我剛剛講的 |
| 00:06:42,000 | 00:06:46,000 | 只有看到的台中114年4月16日那一次 |
| 00:06:46,000 | 00:06:49,000 | 那也要問那個4月26日到底 |
| 00:06:49,000 | 00:06:51,000 | 查的是哪些項目 |
| 00:06:51,000 | 00:06:54,000 | 有沒有檢驗那個本篇筆 |
| 00:06:54,000 | 00:06:58,000 | 在台中市食安專區公布的抽驗報告 |
| 00:06:58,000 | 00:07:01,000 | 8次都沒有驗本篇筆 是嗎 |
| 00:07:01,000 | 00:07:05,000 | 跟委員說明確實我們在每年 |
| 00:07:05,000 | 00:07:08,000 | 我們都會有食藥署的專案稽查 |
| 00:07:08,000 | 00:07:11,000 | 他們的目的是在對全國性的 |
| 00:07:11,000 | 00:07:15,000 | 一致性的稽查項目去做規範 |
| 00:07:15,000 | 00:07:18,000 | 但是各地方政府要依據他 |
| 00:07:18,000 | 00:07:21,000 | 在地轄管的產業屬性 |
| 00:07:21,000 | 00:07:24,000 | 去擬定需要去查核的 |
| 00:07:24,000 | 00:07:27,000 | 所以我們從過去的紀錄看起來 |
| 00:07:27,000 | 00:07:29,000 | 確實如委員所提到的 |
| 00:07:29,000 | 00:07:34,000 | 真正去驗大豆沙拉油的本篇筆的紀錄 |
| 00:07:34,000 | 00:07:39,000 | 就是在113年配合中央的專案稽查 |
| 00:07:39,000 | 00:07:41,000 | 所做的那一次檢驗 |
| 00:07:41,000 | 00:07:43,000 | 所以我覺得連蔣萬安市長都認為 |
| 00:07:43,000 | 00:07:45,000 | 盧秀燕市長應該會說清楚 |
| 00:07:45,000 | 00:07:51,000 | 我認為這樣子如果這種說辭 |
| 00:07:51,000 | 00:07:53,000 | 真的事實上會造成業者僥倖心理 |
| 00:07:53,000 | 00:07:56,000 | 我覺得都需要被檢討 |
| 00:07:56,000 | 00:08:00,000 | 另外像114年台中市的 |
| 00:08:00,000 | 00:08:02,000 | 那個有指的稽查專案 |
| 00:08:02,000 | 00:08:04,000 | 並沒有把中聯列入 |
| 00:08:04,000 | 00:08:05,000 | 台中市政府回應說 |
| 00:08:05,000 | 00:08:07,000 | 法律沒有規定每一家工廠 |
| 00:08:07,000 | 00:08:10,000 | 每一項產品每一年都固定檢驗 |
| 00:08:10,000 | 00:08:13,000 | 並撐中央專案名單沒有中聯 |
| 00:08:13,000 | 00:08:15,000 | 可是1我們的食安法第五條 |
| 00:08:15,000 | 00:08:19,000 | 本來就要求我們的各級主管機關 |
| 00:08:19,000 | 00:08:21,000 | 都要建立風險監測體系 |
| 00:08:21,000 | 00:08:24,000 | 對中聯這種大量的供應全國 |
| 00:08:24,000 | 00:08:27,000 | 下游範圍非常廣的一個上游遊場 |
| 00:08:27,000 | 00:08:30,000 | 地方政府是不是就應該要依產量 |
| 00:08:30,000 | 00:08:34,000 | 我們的製程風險供應的規模跟違規紀錄 |
| 00:08:34,000 | 00:08:37,000 | 決定的稽查跟抽驗的強度來做 |
| 00:08:37,000 | 00:08:40,000 | 而不是凡是推給中央最快 |
| 00:08:40,000 | 00:08:43,000 | 中央專案沒有列入某一家業者 |
| 00:08:43,000 | 00:08:46,000 | 會不會影響地方依法自己要去 |
| 00:08:46,000 | 00:08:47,000 | 執行稽查跟抽驗 |
| 00:08:47,000 | 00:08:49,000 | 如果按照第五條事實上本來 |
| 00:08:49,000 | 00:08:52,000 | 各級地方政府本來就要依你自己的 |
| 00:08:52,000 | 00:08:54,000 | 去做一個風險監測的體系 |
| 00:08:54,000 | 00:08:56,000 | 那如果這樣的話 |
| 00:08:56,000 | 00:08:59,000 | 那中聯在台中他是不是本身 |
| 00:08:59,000 | 00:09:00,000 | 台中市政府就可以去 |
| 00:09:00,000 | 00:09:03,000 | 那地方的檢驗是中央一個口令一個動作 |
| 00:09:03,000 | 00:09:05,000 | 要列名單才會查嗎 |
| 00:09:05,000 | 00:09:07,000 | 我想問他說你沒列名單 |
| 00:09:07,000 | 00:09:09,000 | 所以他不查你要列名單他才會查嗎 |
| 00:09:09,000 | 00:09:12,000 | 剛剛跟委員說明過 |
| 00:09:12,000 | 00:09:14,000 | 我們所列的是全國性的 |
| 00:09:14,000 | 00:09:16,000 | 一致性的專案是這樣 |
| 00:09:16,000 | 00:09:19,000 | 但是各地方政府是根據 |
| 00:09:19,000 | 00:09:22,000 | 他俠管的產業屬性跟風險 |
| 00:09:22,000 | 00:09:25,000 | 那麼去擬定他地方年度的 |
| 00:09:25,000 | 00:09:27,000 | 這個查核的一些計畫 |
| 00:09:27,000 | 00:09:29,000 | 在過去一向都是如此 |
| 00:09:29,000 | 00:09:33,000 | 所以每個地方政府像台南高雄 |
| 00:09:33,000 | 00:09:36,000 | 那麼他們評估過他所做的 |
| 00:09:36,000 | 00:09:42,000 | 那當然不一定是受限於這個主管機關 |
| 00:09:42,000 | 00:09:46,000 | 那麼就是我們食藥署的年度的機械項目 |
| 00:09:46,000 | 00:09:47,000 | 當然是不一樣 |
| 00:09:47,000 | 00:09:48,000 | 那個是全國一致性的 |
| 00:09:48,000 | 00:09:52,000 | 那地方是要按照他的產業屬性去擬定 |
| 00:09:52,000 | 00:09:53,000 | 所以要再說一次喔 |
| 00:09:53,000 | 00:09:56,000 | 第五條也是要求各級主管機關 |
| 00:09:56,000 | 00:09:58,000 | 要建立監測體系 |
| 00:09:58,000 | 00:10:01,000 | 第四十一條也直接授權地方政府 |
| 00:10:01,000 | 00:10:03,000 | 可以進場查核跟抽樣檢驗 |
| 00:10:03,000 | 00:10:06,000 | 所以我認為台中如果認為資料有錯 |
| 00:10:06,000 | 00:10:09,000 | 就把採樣單、送檢單、檢驗項目 |
| 00:10:09,000 | 00:10:11,000 | 及正式的報告全部公開 |
| 00:10:11,000 | 00:10:13,000 | 還有不要換分母 |
| 00:10:13,000 | 00:10:16,000 | 更不要把地方依法可以做的事情 |
| 00:10:16,000 | 00:10:19,000 | 應該做的事情全部推給中央 |
| 00:10:19,000 | 00:10:23,000 | 部長我不會替署長來做特別費的辯護 |
| 00:10:23,000 | 00:10:25,000 | 可是也不會把二十一萬八千元 |
| 00:10:25,000 | 00:10:28,000 | 誇大成食藥署全部的預算備看 |
| 00:10:28,000 | 00:10:30,000 | 預算當然可以檢讀 |
| 00:10:30,000 | 00:10:33,000 | 可是這份提案前面寫的是署長特別費 |
| 00:10:33,000 | 00:10:36,000 | 最後卻又寫說八月到十二月的業務費 |
| 00:10:36,000 | 00:10:37,000 | 全部檢列 |
| 00:10:37,000 | 00:10:39,000 | 檢列金額還留白 |
| 00:10:39,000 | 00:10:42,000 | 究竟是要刪哪一筆 |
| 00:10:42,000 | 00:10:44,000 | 我覺得必須要說明清楚 |
| 00:10:44,000 | 00:10:47,000 | 不能前跟後對不起來 |
| 00:10:47,000 | 00:10:50,000 | 所以部長一正式預算說明書 |
| 00:10:50,000 | 00:10:53,000 | 如果只刪署長的特別費 |
| 00:10:53,000 | 00:10:56,000 | 那這筆特別費原始用途 |
| 00:10:56,000 | 00:10:58,000 | 是在做食品檢驗嗎 |
| 00:10:58,000 | 00:11:00,000 | 是在說食品那個嗎 |
| 00:11:00,000 | 00:11:01,000 | 微運嗎 |
| 00:11:01,000 | 00:11:04,000 | 還是說地方的茶場下架的補助 |
| 00:11:04,000 | 00:11:06,000 | 刪掉之後到底能不能改善 |
| 00:11:06,000 | 00:11:09,000 | 中聯案的那個延遲通報跟流向不明 |
| 00:11:09,000 | 00:11:11,000 | 更嚴重的是 |
| 00:11:11,000 | 00:11:14,000 | 如果提案到最後要刪的是全部業務費 |
| 00:11:14,000 | 00:11:16,000 | 就連租金水電網路保全 |
| 00:11:16,000 | 00:11:18,000 | 跟約用人員的經費 |
| 00:11:18,000 | 00:11:19,000 | 全部都受到影響 |
| 00:11:19,000 | 00:11:21,000 | 那可能很多人就要失業了 |
| 00:11:21,000 | 00:11:24,000 | 那對食安藥安跟醫材管理 |
| 00:11:24,000 | 00:11:26,000 | 會造成哪些具體的衝擊 |
| 00:11:26,000 | 00:11:27,000 | 那這些費用當中 |
| 00:11:27,000 | 00:11:29,000 | 哪一項是造成中聯延遲通報 |
| 00:11:29,000 | 00:11:34,000 | 哪一項是導致我們的流向茶氣失靈 |
| 00:11:34,000 | 00:11:36,000 | 所以如果全部刪除 |
| 00:11:36,000 | 00:11:37,000 | 那也就跟 |
| 00:11:37,000 | 00:11:40,000 | 也跟在野黨所說的合理保障 |
| 00:11:40,000 | 00:11:41,000 | 必要經費 |
| 00:11:41,000 | 00:11:44,000 | 嚴格刪減浪費互相矛盾 |
| 00:11:44,000 | 00:11:47,000 | 我要請這個提案的在野黨 |
| 00:11:47,000 | 00:11:48,000 | 好好的思考 |
| 00:11:48,000 | 00:11:50,000 | 刪預算究竟是為了改革 |
| 00:11:50,000 | 00:11:53,000 | 還是為了政治的威嚇 |
| 00:11:53,000 | 00:11:54,000 | 要想清楚 |
| 00:11:54,000 | 00:11:56,000 | 而且不要前後文都對不起來 |
| 00:11:56,000 | 00:11:57,000 | 不然前面 |
| 00:11:57,000 | 00:12:00,000 | 在野黨把責任都推給中央 |
| 00:12:00,000 | 00:12:01,000 | 可是很特別 |
| 00:12:01,000 | 00:12:02,000 | 甚至要刪預算 |
| 00:12:02,000 | 00:12:03,000 | 可是最後提出來方向 |
| 00:12:03,000 | 00:12:05,000 | 仍然回到源頭檢驗 |
| 00:12:05,000 | 00:12:07,000 | 異常通報流向追蹤 |
| 00:12:07,000 | 00:12:08,000 | 跟預防性下降 |
| 00:12:08,000 | 00:12:11,000 | 跟行政院目前提出來的 |
| 00:12:11,000 | 00:12:13,000 | 改革核心高度的重疊 |
| 00:12:13,000 | 00:12:16,000 | 代表大家都知道全責分工 |
| 00:12:16,000 | 00:12:18,000 | 跟加強管理是解決的方法 |
| 00:12:18,000 | 00:12:19,000 | 既然如此 |
| 00:12:19,000 | 00:12:21,000 | 就不要再比誰罵的大聲 |
| 00:12:21,000 | 00:12:23,000 | 因會到條文討論到 |
| 00:12:23,000 | 00:12:25,000 | 到底我們要怎麼樣落地 |
| 00:12:25,000 | 00:12:26,000 | 比較重要 |
| 00:12:26,000 | 00:12:28,000 | 所以我覺得行政院規劃 |
| 00:12:28,000 | 00:12:30,000 | 增訂我們的高風險業者的 |
| 00:12:30,000 | 00:12:32,000 | 檢驗的頻率跟實驗室 |
| 00:12:32,000 | 00:12:34,000 | 跟第三方的通報 |
| 00:12:34,000 | 00:12:36,000 | 那把各式其質的東西 |
| 00:12:36,000 | 00:12:38,000 | 都確認清楚的話 |
| 00:12:38,000 | 00:12:39,000 | 地方風險導向查核 |
| 00:12:39,000 | 00:12:41,000 | 重大事件中央來指揮 |
| 00:12:41,000 | 00:12:44,000 | 以及下架跟重新上架的原則 |
| 00:12:44,000 | 00:12:45,000 | 請部長具體說明 |
| 00:12:45,000 | 00:12:47,000 | 我們的高風險業者如何認定 |
| 00:12:47,000 | 00:12:49,000 | 地方查核的強度如何決定 |
| 00:12:49,000 | 00:12:51,000 | 而且要如何被討論 |
| 00:12:51,000 | 00:12:53,000 | 好 跟委員說明 |
| 00:12:53,000 | 00:12:55,000 | 這個我們食藥署的責任 |
| 00:12:55,000 | 00:13:01,000 | 就是要確保民眾的食品安全 |
| 00:13:01,000 | 00:13:03,000 | 那麼有很多的計畫 |
| 00:13:03,000 | 00:13:06,000 | 跟系統制度要建立 |
| 00:13:06,000 | 00:13:09,000 | 那麼這些執行都需要預算 |
| 00:13:09,000 | 00:13:11,000 | 所以我們懇請立法院 |
| 00:13:11,000 | 00:13:15,000 | 能夠支持食藥署的預算 |
| 00:13:15,000 | 00:13:17,000 | 來為人民的食品安全 |
| 00:13:17,000 | 00:13:20,000 | 來做把關來提升 |
| 00:13:20,000 | 00:13:23,000 | 那麼至於這個特別費的部分 |
| 00:13:23,000 | 00:13:25,000 | 那麼我也要特別拜託 |
| 00:13:25,000 | 00:13:28,000 | 因為在這個食藥署 |
| 00:13:28,000 | 00:13:32,000 | 大家的很多的同仁是相當辛苦 |
| 00:13:32,000 | 00:13:34,000 | 那麼署長歷年也都會 |
| 00:13:34,000 | 00:13:35,000 | 把他的特別費 |
| 00:13:35,000 | 00:13:38,000 | 那麼用在對員工的一些靠賞 |
| 00:13:38,000 | 00:13:41,000 | 那麼這個在這麼多的業務下 |
| 00:13:41,000 | 00:13:44,000 | 那麼對員工的激勵 |
| 00:13:44,000 | 00:13:46,000 | 也是相當有他的必要性 |
| 00:13:46,000 | 00:13:48,000 | 所以也懇請這個委員 |
| 00:13:48,000 | 00:13:51,000 | 能夠給予衡量 酌情 |
| 00:13:51,000 | 00:13:54,000 | 那麼至於在這個修法的部分 |
| 00:13:54,000 | 00:13:57,000 | 我們已經剛剛在我的口頭報告裡面 |
| 00:13:57,000 | 00:13:59,000 | 大概有十個方向 |
| 00:13:59,000 | 00:14:02,000 | 那麼我也參酌了這個國民黨團 |
| 00:14:02,000 | 00:14:05,000 | 也提出的一些修法的條文 |
| 00:14:05,000 | 00:14:08,000 | 那麼也都跟我們大概都含納了 |
| 00:14:08,000 | 00:14:11,000 | 它只是有一些放在執法規 |
| 00:14:11,000 | 00:14:14,000 | 有一些是在母法裡面來修訂 |
| 00:14:14,000 | 00:14:16,000 | 所以我們期待盡快的 |
| 00:14:16,000 | 00:14:18,000 | 盡快的能夠排入委員會 |
| 00:14:18,000 | 00:14:21,000 | 來審查這個食安法的修法 |
| 00:14:21,000 | 00:14:22,000 | 所以我覺得食安修法 |
| 00:14:22,000 | 00:14:23,000 | 不是搶攻牢牢 |
| 00:14:23,000 | 00:14:26,000 | 我覺得既然朝野方向既然都接近 |
| 00:14:26,000 | 00:14:27,000 | 就應該停止政治動作 |
| 00:14:27,000 | 00:14:30,000 | 把真正有效的制度寫進法律 |
| 00:14:30,000 | 00:14:31,000 | 這個比較務實 |
| 00:14:31,000 | 00:14:32,000 | 才是幫全民把關 |
| 00:14:32,000 | 00:14:33,000 | 以上謝謝 |
| 00:14:33,000 | 00:14:35,000 | 好 謝謝 林委員 |