Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-12-Speech-2-333"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020312.13.2-333"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, this proposal is the second major component in our defence barriers against BSE. The other is, of course, the regulation on TSEs. It is a hugely important proposal, key to the safe processing of the millions of tonnes of animal by-products produced in the Union each year. The continued absence of a sound, comprehensive and regulatory framework to deal with these by-products is quite dangerous.
The Commission, having heard the insistence of 13 Member States on the necessity for a ban, and in the interests of consistency, remains opposed to any relaxation of an outright ban in this regulation. We must therefore reject Amendments Nos 1, 10 and 25.
We are also opposed to these amendments on institutional grounds, as the insistence on a deadline and on the content of future proposals undermines the Commission's right of initiative. Furthermore, the disposal and recycling of catering waste is and will be governed by existing and future environmental legislation on biodegradable waste.
Finally, the Commission has already officially declared that it is ready to propose transitional measures, to be adopted by comitology whenever this is justified and appropriate, in order to allow the affected industries time to adapt to the new requirements introduced by this regulation. I would also refer you to Article 32, which might give further assistance in this area.
Turning to the details, we cannot accept Amendments Nos 3 and 5 on the requirement of the marking of unprocessed category 1 and 2 material. Acceptance would require the marking of cadavers, including pet animals, and 1.2 billion tonnes of manure. I leave to your imagination the potential for the Eurosceptic press to exploit this requirement in order to undermine our credibility.
We also cannot accept Amendment No 9, as detailed and sufficient requirements regarding accompanying documents and record-keeping are established in the annex to the regulation and may be supplemented if need be by comitology.
We can, however, accept Amendments Nos 22 and 23 on catering waste making reference to environmental legislation, as they would ensure that the goals of the regulation are achieved without undermining separate collection schemes. Therefore, Amendments Nos 17 and 19 are unnecessary and cannot be supported by us.
Amendments Nos 22 and 23 also clarify that the highest risk catering waste from international means of transport should remain subject to the control rules of Article 7. Therefore, they are preferable to Amendments Nos 7 and 8.
We cannot accept Amendment No 18, aimed at excluding household kitchen waste from the definition of catering waste, as this is would be inconsistent with the existing EU legislation on classical swine fever.
Turning to another important issue – sludge from slaughterhouses – we cannot support the first part of Amendment No 2, as it virtually destroys the effect of Article 4 by removing from the scope of the article material from waste-water systems from all slaughterhouses and other premises from which specified risk material is removed. It should be noted that the TSE Regulation does not establish any rules in this area. But as an aside, and in answer to Mr Goodwill, I should point out that I have written to Dr. Jackson on this particular subject. I have sent a copy of the letter to a number of Members and I will ensure that a copy is sent to you. It explains the position with regard to sludge and gives the kind of reassurance you sought earlier in your presentation.
We could accept in broad terms the second part of Amendment No 2, which seeks to clarify that animal material collected when treating waste water is a category 1 material only if contains BSE specified risk material. However, Amendment No 21, which has the same objective but is clearer, is acceptable. Amendment No 4 cannot be accepted as, when combined with Amendment No 2 or with Amendment No 21, it would be superfluous and confusing.
First of all, I would like to single out for particular appreciation your rapporteur, Mrs Paulsen, for her enormous efforts and tireless work over these months in pursuing a rapid agreement with the Commission and the Council towards early implementation of the proposed regulation. A great many of the key provisions of the regulation under discussion result from her personal commitment and determination.
We cannot support Amendment No 14, which would provide a 3-year transitional period without conditions to apply during this period. I repeat that the Commission has already officially declared that it is ready to propose transitional measures to be adopted by comitology whenever this is justified and appropriate.
We can support Amendment No 24 aiming to extend the derogation on the feeding of certain animals with category 1 material to endangered and protected species of, for example, vultures. We cannot accept Amendment No 11, as it would extend that derogation to any endangered or protected species.
We can support Amendment No 20 requiring Member States to submit a report on the implementation of the Regulation, except for the reference to the lifting of the ban on meat- and bonemeal. This is already comprehensively covered by the TSE Regulation. Similarly, we can support the principle of Amendment No 13, which has the same objective as the first part of Amendment No 20, subject to editorial change.
Finally, we can accept Amendments Nos 6, 12, 15 and 16 to various articles and annexes, as they are in line with the basic objectives of the Regulation.
I wish also to note that Parliament has not made any further amendments to the second proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 90/425/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards health requirements for animal by-products.
I am greatly encouraged that all three institutions are in general agreement on three key principles: the requirement that only animal by-products derived from animals fit for human consumption should be used in feed, cosmetic and pharmaceutical products; the prohibition of intra-species recycling; and the need to tighten certain provisions in order to improve the control and traceability of animal by-products.
However, I regret that, despite the very good progress made on the proposal, the question of how to deal with catering waste remains a main obstacle to final agreement.
The feeding of catering waste carries a major threat of transmission of serious animal diseases such as foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever. For example, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the UK last year, which caused such enormous losses to both the farming and non-farming community, is reliably known to have originated from swill feeding. I might also add that the outbreak of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1997 was also caused by the feeding of pigswill in neighbouring Germany.
Nobody would wish this to occur again. Given the huge damage which has arisen from recent outbreaks of these diseases, the insistence of Member States on very high levels of protection is understandable and shared by the Commission.
I am fully aware of your concerns that a total ban may not be appropriate, especially in Member States with strict controls. However, I am equally aware that the Member States are not prepared to take any risk arising from the authorisation of swill feeding. They have already decided on a ban in the swine fever directive, despite several opportunities to reconsider the need for a ban. There are no indications of a reversal of this position.
Parliament must also accept that there are contradictions in any proposal to retain swill feeding. For example, Parliament is demanding the full traceability of ingredients in animal feedingstuffs and a ban on what might be described as cannibalism. How can this be consistent with a derogation allowing the use of waste collected from restaurants and hospital kitchens to feed pigs and poultry?
Similarly, how can Parliament ask to exclude catering waste from the strict control rules of the regulation, fearing that these rules would compromise the practice of composting, and at the same time demand that the Commission propose a new regulation on the safe disposal of catering waste?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples