Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-16-Speech-4-089"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991216.2.4-089"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-16-Speech-4-0902
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"The regulation to be amended at the Commission’s proposal was described two years ago in the wake of the BSE crisis as a central issue and an important decision within the context of European consumer protection. The stated purpose of the regulation is to protect animal and human health and to increase or restore consumer confidence in the quality of beef and meat products. What was it that persuaded the Council to adopt this regulation when it did? Was it perhaps a way of saying to the public, look here, we are doing all we can to end the BSE crisis, while never really having any serious intention, either then or now, of implementing the regulation. Unfortunately, it was just that. The public has been cheated and, on top of everything, a disservice has been done to European consumer protection. To be sure, some speakers voiced their concern during the first and second readings that the text of the law was perhaps too strict and that there would be problems with its transposition. So there were signs. If that was the problem, we had the chance to rectify it but, unfortunately, we did not make use of that chance. The errors on the part of individual Member States, and I would be most interested to know which Member States, is only one side of the coin; the irresponsible conduct on the part of the Commission is the other. Allow me in this context to remind the Commission of a few agreed dates: the Commission should be managing an electronic data base on 31 December 1999, i.e. in 16 days’ time. Is this data base up and running? The same question arises in relation to the Member States’ reports on the implementation of the beef labelling system; these reports were supposed to have been sent to the Commission by 1 May 1999. Are they available? Obviously the delay with all the stages of transposition has not come about overnight. The Commission must have been able to see at the beginning of the year that the deadlines set could not be kept. Why then was Parliament not informed of these developments earlier, as it could have been in July. Today we are discussing postponing the entry into force of the regulation really knowing how transposition is progressing in the individual Member States, without knowing how long implementation will still take and, more importantly, what action has yet to be taken. The original intention of the regulation, which was to generate confidence in European consumer protection, would be reversed by this sort of measure. The Commission’s present proposal is, in my eyes, confusing and lacking in background information and I am therefore unable to support it."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"without"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph