Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-220"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.7.3-220"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this proposal has a long history. I can understand why the rapporteur and Mr Papayannakis are weary of further controversy. However, we are almost at the end. As the rapporteur, he has quite properly had to tell the House that the Environment Committee voted by a substantial majority – I think 33 votes to 13 – in favour of the excision of the provisions relating to category of animal.
We have, on the committee, made a number of compromises, as regards both the timetable and the substance. The Committee has always kept a clear priority and has insisted upon it both to the Council and to the Commission: namely to have the sharpest, best-defined route of traceability on safety grounds that we can get for mince as well as other forms of beef. It was for this reason that it threw out at first reading the superfluous requirements about maturation times, much as chefs might have wanted them, and category of animal, which did nothing for traceability, added cost, and increased the disaffection of many Member States and of those who will have to implement this proposal.
As a result of that, we thought the matter was resolved. Indeed, as Mr Papayannakis has said, there have been counter-concessions from the Commission. Now, to our amazement, category of animal is back, and once again the Environment Committee has voted to remove it. The Commission knows why. It knows we cannot be bullied with threats that our timetable will slip. We have made concessions including a full month’s delay on the implementation of the second phase of this proposal already. We have done that with a good grace.
I urge the House to reaffirm its position at first reading and to exclude a form of compulsory category labelling which is entirely optional for Member States, – a form of labelling we should point out which we do not have in detail. We have to surrender to the secret harmonies of comitology if we are going to leave it to Commission to advance the precise definitions. We are not prepared to do that. We want traceability, we want surveillance, we want this proposal and we want it quickly. We want the best and most economic route to achieve it and Amendments Nos 3 and 5 do that. The various amendments on mince add to surveillance and traceability in the way we propose.
Conciliation, Mr Papayannakis, does not take very long. It consists of two words from the Commissioner this afternoon: ‘We accept.’ Let us hear them."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples