Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-10-Speech-1-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000410.6.1-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Staes for his report on the organisation of inspections in the field of animal nutrition and for the broad support that was also given to the Commission position by Mr Olsson, Mrs Klaß and Mrs Roth-Behrendt. I particularly appreciate the good collaboration with Parliament in this case. Already at first reading, Parliament fully supported the Commission's proposal.
The proposal aims at improving control measures in the field of animal nutrition. It intends to harmonise inspection procedures for all products imported from third countries. In 1998, the detection of dioxin in some raw materials imported into the Community showed the need for a legal basis to permit the Commission when confronted by a serious risk to public health to adopt safeguard measures on products from third countries.
The proposal also extends the legal basis to carry out on-the-spot inspections, both in Member States and in third countries. I have to say that I was surprised by the Council's rejection of the Commission proposal for the safeguard clause and by the introduction of a committee procedure that will not guarantee that a prompt decision is taken in the event of a serious risk to human or animal health. As a matter of fact, the dioxin contamination has clearly shown how important rapid action is, in particular when a danger spreads from the feed to the food chain. I should also highlight the fact that similar provisions already exist in food and veterinary legislation and there is no evidence of misuse of this instrument.
The Commission, although not opposed to most of the amendments made by the Council, strongly rejected the Council amendment concerning the safeguard procedure. Council has denied the possibility for the Commission to take immediate action in emergency cases without consulting Member States beforehand. The possibility for the Commission situations to react quickly in emergency cases even before consulting Member States is a landmark question. The discussion in the present case constitutes an important precedent for the future.
Following the dioxin crisis of May 1999, the Commission announced legislative acts to improve the legal provisions regulating feed safety. In the recent proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council adopted on 21 March, the Commission introduced the same safeguard clause concerning feedingstuffs produced within the European Union. Consequently, this question will also be relevant for several measures on feedingstuffs which are of vital importance and which are announced in the White Paper on food safety.
For all these reasons, I can fully accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, and 4 by which Parliament reintroduces the original provision on safeguard procedures. Although it is not so important as the other amendments, I can also accept Amendment No 3 regarding the carrying out of on-the-spot inspections.
In the light of the plenary's support for the amendments put forward by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, I will press once more on the Council the strong case for supporting the proposal's original provisions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples