Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-14-Speech-1-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010514.5.1-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I also wish to congratulate Mrs Paulsen on her diligence in preparing and seeing through this report, and to echo a previous speaker who said of Mr Maaten's report – but it is equally true of this one – that it is a model of the second-reading procedure.
We are gathered here with a reasonable unanimity in the committee, with a very modest number of amendments but with an absolute certainty that we want to press our point. If codecision is to have any meaning, that is a position we will maintain to the end.
I am putting the position of my group in the absence of Mrs Roth-Behrendt who, as some will know, is in hospital in Berlin. I saw her last week in Berlin and I am sure she is making a rapid recovery and would wish all to know that her heart remains in our proceedings in these matters of food hygiene and food safety.
There are only six amendments which the House has to consider tonight: five from the committee as a whole and the sixth tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. My group supports all of them for one simple reason: we surely should have learned by now the lesson that precision and targeting of possible dangers in animal feed is of the essence of the precautions that we need to take.
Over the last two or three years we have seen enough of the dreadful practices in parts of the animal-feed industry, sometimes practices that were already illegal according to the rules of those days. They need to be tightened up quickly. Precision is at the heart of what Mrs Paulsen has had to say to us today. Precision in language most of all: the word "contamination" is not satisfactory when it is used in the phraseology of the food authority proposals, which we will be discussing shortly. It is not sufficient where we need to be able to have a further process of scrutiny and inspection of damaging materials that may be inserted very early on into the manufacture of animal feed.
I am very glad that one important principle is enshrined in this report as it goes through to the next stage: animal feed should be taken as seriously for all of us in our own interests as human food. The two are more or less indistinguishable, both in their effects on human kind and on the animals with whom we share this planet.
There is an election going on in Britain and yesterday I was doing my stuff on the doorstep in a country village. People were asking whether veterinary inspections were secure and safe and could possible be self-policed. I have known and represented that place for 30 years. Ten years ago you would never have heard these considerations. The fact that they are now paramount argues the case for this report."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples