Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-305"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.11.2-305"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Papayannakis, and Mr Kindermann, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture, for their constructive contributions to the debate on the draft regulation under discussion. A whole series of amendments to the Commission proposal have been tabled, 44 of which were accepted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection on 22 March. A further 18 proposed amendments were subsequently submitted for this plenary sitting.
As far as the Commission’s powers to react to unusual and unforeseen circumstances are concerned, I am, unfortunately, unable to accept proposed Amendments Nos 16 and 38 because they prevent a practicable solution. Finally, I think it is premature to commit ourselves to extending the labelling system to processed products containing beef, as suggested in proposed Amendment No 40. Let us gain some experience with the system being proposed now and then we can consider this idea at a later date.
As far as the proposed amendments tabled subsequently at the end of last week are concerned, I have already explained in connection with proposed Amendments Nos 45 and 46 that the Commission agrees with you that the first stage of the compulsory system should start on 1 September this year. If proposed Amendment No 44 is accepted, the regulation automatically enters into force on this date. Proposed Amendments Nos 45 and 46 are therefore superfluous for technical reasons.
As far as proposed Amendment No 47 is concerned, I should like to advise against continuing the national compulsory beef identification system as soon as the full EU system has been introduced. In the end we would have 15 different national systems, which runs completely counter to the internal market.
Proposed Amendment No 48 refers to information on the use of antibiotics or stimulants and to fattening methods. This idea may look simple on paper, but it is in fact extremely complicated to administer and, more importantly, to control. In addition, there is no definition of the various rearing methods and every animal will certainly be fed using various methods, rather than one and the same method, during its lifetime. As far as medication is concerned, it would be much better to maintain our high veterinary standards, thereby guaranteeing that only safe beef reaches the market. The Commission would therefore prefer not to adopt this proposal.
As far as the voluntary system is concerned, which is to be set up alongside the new compulsory system in order to include all the information which is not being made compulsory, the Commission can accept two of the four amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment, namely proposals 33 and 35.
It is obvious from the vote in committee that Parliament is not in favour of amending the Commission’s basic attempt to simplify the approval procedure. However, I see that a total of nine new proposed amendments have been tabled for this plenary sitting which were not adopted by the Committee on the Environment. These amendments seek to re-introduce a formal approval procedure for voluntary information on labels.
Let me assure you that such amendments do not cause any particular problem because their purpose is to reinforce the administrative procedure. For the rest, recent discussions in the Council have gone in the same direction. I am therefore convinced that these proposed amendments will be taken on board by the Council.
From now on, the Commission will be acting as go-between between the two decision-making institutions on this matter. With just over three months, we do not have much time left for a final decision. Given the speed with which you have worked here in Parliament, hopefully the Council will decide on its common position as quickly as possible.
I should like to start with the Commission’s views on the first 44 proposals. The Commission is able to accept 18 of them. This includes proposed amendments which are accepted in full or in part and amendments which require minor editorial changes. In another 12 proposed amendments I can see what your concerns are but the Commission is unable to accept these amendments. However, I shall ensure that the Council is informed of your point of view. This applies, for example, to proposed Amendment No 20.
A number of the proposed amendments which the Commission is able to accept, such as Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 18 and 19 first part, and 21, 33, 35 and 42 tighten up the wording. I also accept proposed Amendment No 19, second part, which makes provision for a simplification for cattle pastured on the Alps in the summer. The improvements to the definition of labelling are also acceptable. The same applies to the information to be included on the label and to the interpretation of the concept of origin. I am therefore prepared to accept proposed Amendments Nos 22 and 23, insofar as they concern labelling, and the parts of proposed Amendments Nos 25, 26 and 28 calling for information on individual regions to be scrapped.
As we are all concerned that the labelling system should be introduced as quickly as possible, I welcome proposed Amendment No 39 reducing the deadline set for the Member States to appoint the competent authorities. Finally, proposed Amendment No 44, under which the regulation would enter into force on 1 September 2000 heads in exactly the same direction. I think the new recital suggested in proposed Amendment No 6, whereby Member States must ensure that their databases are operational as quickly as possible, is also a good idea.
I am also able to accept the parts of proposed Amendments Nos 25, 26 and 28 making information on the region optional, whereby I assume, if no decision is made to the contrary, that this information will come under the voluntary system. As I too take the view that the possibility of confusion with protected geographical indications governed by Regulation 2081/92 must be excluded, I agree unreservedly with the new recital in proposed Amendment No 15. Nonetheless, we must still investigate how the stated objective is to be reached, whereby I envisage a more comprehensive solution than that suggested in proposed Amendment No 29.
The question of when compulsory indications of origin need to be introduced is an important point. As the obligation to enter the place of birth and all stopovers in the animal passport and database has only been introduced for animals born on or after 1 January 1998, it will be difficult to trace the complete origin of bovine animals over the next five years. According to our calculations, this problem will apply to just under half the beef produced from 2003 onwards, which is why I have reservations about introducing compulsory indications of origin earlier or even, as suggested in proposed Amendment No 26, as early as 1 September 2001. I would point out in this respect that the Committee on Agriculture has recommended that they be introduced on 1 January 2002.
I also note that you insist that indications of origin must state the country, even if this means listing several countries on the label. I am sorry that you find the simplified indication “Produced in the European Union” unacceptable, despite the fact that it is in keeping with the principles of the internal market. As far as labelling of minced meat is concerned, we must bear in mind that the production of minced meat, for example of hamburgers, is a continuous process. The obligation to provide a complete indication of origin for this meat would therefore give rise to technical problems and may well bring the entire intra-Community trade in processed meat to a virtual standstill.
I would therefore suggest that you reconsider the simplified labelling system. The proposed labelling regulation makes provision for the possibility of combining animals in groups rather than entering each individual animal with producers who take the trouble to guarantee the traceability of each individual animal given an incentive in the form of a special logo.
I must admit that I do not fully understand why you demand in proposed Amendments Nos 14 and 31 that we should let go of the only instrument which guarantees real and complete traceability."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples