Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-15-Speech-3-353"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991215.13.3-353"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Let me begin with a word of apology for my delayed arrival this afternoon. Unfortunately, weather conditions in Brussels led to the cancellation of this morning's flight and therefore I was unable to be present in person to update Parliament on the BSE dispute. This has led I know to a change in the schedule of Parliamentary business with this important debate now taking place late in the evening. I have been informed of all the work of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on this proposal. I would like to congratulate Mr Papayannakis, the rapporteur, and Mr Kindermann, draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.
I should like to add that the debate is still open in relation to the Commission proposal on the general rules applying an obligatory regime. It is in this context that the main debate should take place. It is unfortunate that discussions of these very complex and important issues have had to take place in the context of an emergency decision with a near-impossible deadline.
The Commission is of the view that Article 152 is the appropriate legal base. This is an extremely important and contested issue which is currently before the Court of Justice. On this question the Commission cannot agree to the addition of Article 37.
There is little or no appetite in the Member States for a fully compulsory system from 1 January 2000. We cannot ignore this reality, nor can we assume that we have a better idea of the obligations involved than the Member States. Member States can choose to impose compulsory labelling for beef cattle born, raised and slaughtered on their own territory. Only three have chosen to do so.
The Commission is in favour of full, compulsory labelling. It is therefore proposed that it should take place from 1 January 2001 for place of slaughter and, in addition, from 1 January 2003 for place of birth and fattening. I can assure you that I am committed to this particular proposal and to the question of compulsory labelling. It is my intention to pursue that in the period of time I am in office, and to do so quickly.
Turning to some of the questions that were raised by some of you, I will try to give you some answers in relation to these issues.
In relation to the question raised by Mr Papayannakis when he said: "You are trying to fool us here". I am not sure if the interpreters made some kind of mistake. I would like to place a benign interpretation on those words rather than a malign one, because they are open to the interpretation that I am attempting to mislead Parliament. That, as you know, Mr Papayannakis, is one of the most serious charges that can be laid against anybody. If that was your intention I reject it and resent it. I have always been open with Parliament. On the first day I came here, when I spoke at my hearings in September, I made it absolutely clear that it was my intention to be open and transparent with Parliament. I have appeared in Parliament in plenary session on many occasions in the short time that I have been Commissioner. I have appeared before committees of this House on a number of occasions also. Never once in that period of time was any such suggestion made to me. I do not accept it.
The business before us is the Commission proposal to extend the existing voluntary labelling requirements under Regulation (EC) No 820/97 for a further year. I am very aware that Parliament is deeply unhappy that a compulsory labelling regime is not in place as envisaged with effect from 1 January 2000. I note that there is a proposed amendment which criticises the Commission and certain Member States for this delay. However there were good and justifiable reasons for this delay. Firstly, Member States did not submit the required reports on existing arrangements in sufficient time. Secondly, not all Member States will be in a position to establish reliable registration and identification systems for all animals. Finally, the last Commission took a decision, following its resignation, not to present any major new political initiatives and I understand that Parliament agreed with that proposal.
This Commission was therefore faced with a very difficult situation. There was a very tight deadline, 1 January 2000, within which to agree a proposal laying down general rules for a compulsory system to apply from that date. Quite simply, with the best will in the world, this deadline cannot be met. The proposal has been made under the codecision procedure but full agreement between the Community institutions cannot be expected for several months. This is the minimum time necessary to agree such important issues.
In these circumstances, the Commission also presented a second proposal to prolong the existing voluntary arrangements provided for under Regulation (EC) No 820/97. This is also in accordance with the codecision procedure. It therefore is also confronted with the very pressing deadline of 1 January 2000. The challenge is to reach full agreement within the next week or so.
Yesterday the Council discussed this second Commission proposal for a prolongation of the existing regime. The Council agreed an orientation on this proposal with only one amendment – the addition of Article 37 alongside Article 152 – to the legal base. This is, of course, a major amendment which, in my opinion, does not favour a quick conclusion to the codecision procedure. Any amendment by Parliament to the Commission's proposal, which is contrary to the orientation agreed by the Council yesterday is equally certain to block any progress towards agreement before the end of this year.
This puts both the Parliament and the Commission in a very difficult situation. You will be very aware of the implications. In these circumstances, the Commission has a responsibility to act. As already signalled, the Commission would be obliged, in order to avoid a legal void, to present a third proposal. This third proposal would be based on Article 19 of the existing Regulation (EC) No 820/97 and would prolong the existing arrangements providing for voluntary labelling.
My intention would be to examine carefully your amendments with a view to seeing in what measure they can be considered. On this point I must underline that certain amendments which aim to shorten delays go in the direction of improved consumer protection, which of course is an issue that is close to my heart. I can in this context accept amendments which aim to shorten the period during which the existing arrangements can continue for a period of eight months.
However, I cannot accept your amendments concerning bringing forward the labelling of place of slaughter with effect from 1 January 2000. I have a lot of sympathy for this amendment and signal to the Council a strong wish to have it considered in their common position. Indeed, yesterday in Council I drew the Council's attention to the fact that there was an amendment put forward by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy on Monday. However, there was virtually no support. It is also a provision which would perhaps be better addressed in the main proposal on the general rules. This proposal is also currently before the Council and Parliament.
The Commission cannot accept the proposed amendment to drop the requirement for real debate between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the main proposal based on Article 152 of the Treaty. This would be the consequence if this amendment is adopted: Parliament would give up its important obligation to participate in this debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples