Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-11-Speech-2-291"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011211.13.2-291"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, there are, under the circumstances, a lot of reports on animal feedingstuffs and animal nutrition before Parliament at the present time. Yesterday, we discussed the circulation of compound feedingstuffs; today, at a second reading, we are back with undesirable substances in animal nutrition.
Mrs Paulsen has confirmed that, in its common position of 17 September 2001, the Council shared Parliament's view that, in order to ensure a comprehensive level of protection, no mixing or dilution should be permitted and that, in addition, the Member States should be empowered to lay down action thresholds.
I think that the practicality of these proposals will be shown when the time comes to implement them, and if there are problems then we must be ready to make more changes. We know that everything that is prescribed must be capable of being monitored, which does not mean that only the possibility of monitoring must exist, but that monitoring is actually carried out.
What we are actually hoping for is that we can complete this document today. Our misgivings about the issues raised by Article 13(2) have been put forward, and we continue to hope that there will be a compromise, even if Mrs Paulsen has now cast doubt on it. The groups have come to an agreement among themselves. What is at issue is the re-exportation of products intended for animal nutrition produced outside the Community and not complying with this directive's requirements.
It is not enough to simply say, ‘I do not want that, so I shall send it back’. We ask ourselves questions and we face responsibilities. What happens to feedingstuffs like that? Do they get destroyed, are they diluted, or do they reach us or other countries by other routes? ‘You shall not to others do/what they should not do to you’, we say in Germany, so we are actually in favour of requiring the destruction of produce bought as feedingstuff but not permissible as such under this directive, and of it being done on the spot. The objection now raised to that is that it means the European Union being misused as a disposal plant. I think we would have no problems with that if we could resolve the question of how the costs would be met. So it is not enough to simply send the stuff back, and does not do justice to our responsibility as politicians.
We continue to hope that the compromise that is taking shape, which we have brought in in Amendment No 4, will be supported by a majority in this House, and that we will be able to persuade the Council as well. It will make it possible to put abuses of the system on the record and to document them. The authorities in the exporting third country must give their express consent to the re-exportation. I would, though, see the next logical step as being for the exporting third country to also produce evidence of what has subsequently been done with the items taken back."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples