Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-19-Speech-1-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040419.7.1-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Commissioner has beaten me to it and said virtually everything I had planned to say. He and I are very much in agreement on this matter.
Before I start, I wish to add to what the Commissioner said about the Food Safety Authority, which is of fundamental importance. It is a plea to this Parliament and to the Commission and everyone concerned that there should be sufficient funding to ensure that the Food Safety Authority can do its job. The committee felt very strongly about that.
I fully welcome the proposals on harmonisation of maximum residue levels in foodstuffs throughout the European Union. For too long there have been variations from country to country. As the Commissioner said, it is very important that a product consumed in one country should be just as safe in another country. It is to this end that I have worked closely with the Commission and the Council.
I would also like to add my thanks to Mr El Khadraoui, the Socialist shadow rapporteur, because we managed to table a number of compromise amendments which, with his help and help from other Groups, have alleviated some of the problems, because there were a number of disagreements. As I said, my aim was to produce something that would not only lead to safety, but would also be workable and sets workable standards. As the Commissioner said, I have taken a lot from Directive 91/414/EEC, which covers plant protection products, and I wish to add to that. I am sure that the committee will – as far as possible, as we resubmit amendments – feel that they are important for the functioning of this legislation. I said that we are resubmitting some: we are not resubmitting all the amendments that failed in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, because it was rather pointless.
I will now go through the amendments we are resubmitting so that colleagues will understand why we are resubmitting them. Amendments Nos 74 to 78, which deal with temporary MRLs, bring the legislation more into line with Directive 91/414/EEC. I feel certain that we have managed to do this in a way that does not compromise public health, because public health is the precise aim of this piece of legislation. Amendment No 74 explains why temporary MRLs are needed. Producers have four years from inclusion of full product dossiers for re-registration. Amendment No 77 deals with the practicalities; the four-year procedure will be used only when Member States request it, and then it will depend upon them showing the necessary research on the product. This amendment fell by three votes in committee, but, if Parliament were to adopt it, it would really add something to the legislation.
Regarding amendments resubmitted by colleagues, Amendment No 67, concerning the setting of MRLs, covers vulnerable groups. We are all aware that vulnerable groups need protecting, but again existing legislation covers that and therefore there is little point in agreeing on that amendment, even though I am sure my colleagues will disagree with that. At no time would Parliament ever take out legislation that supported that.
Amendment No 69 concerns integrated pest management. There is no such thing as a set of standards on integrated pest management. There are, however, different types of farming, and therefore it would be misleading to say that it favours non-chemical methods, because agriculture is agriculture. No farmer – and I speak as a farmer – wants to use chemicals unnecessarily.
I would add one last point that is of particular importance. One of the amendments tabled by Mr Lannoye concerns import tolerances. This is of particular importance because my brain tells me that we should not accept this amendment. My farmer's heart, however, tells me that we should, because it is a legal way of stopping imports into the European Union. I shall use my common sense and recommend that we vote against Mr Lannoye's amendment.
My final point is addressed to the Commissioner: for those who have food, there are many problems; for those who do not, there is only one."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples