Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-15-Speech-2-133"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000215.7.2-133"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, over the years, the following situation has arisen: one subject has developed into a subject of many facets. Many of us here in this House have spent years, whether we intended to or not, dealing solely with the consequences of the BSE scandal right down to the last detail. And it is still on the agenda today. It is therefore hardly surprising that I and Mr Böge are talking about it and that Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has just mentioned it in his report. The cast is always the same. Although the cause was unfortunate, it was certainly not the worst experience of this Parliament.
My task as draftsman of the opinion of the Environment Committee is a very simple one. I agree with the rapporteur and am able to say that the Environment Committee has asked the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to agree to the Commission proposal. That saves a great deal of time which I would like to use for other things and which I shall use now somewhat in anticipation, as Mr Böge has just done.
I have yet to submit my report on TSEs to the House. At first we were somewhat irresolute and we regret that now. But I have come to the conclusion that it was in fact quite clever timing. This debate does in fact give us an excellent opportunity, Mr Byrne, to give the Commission a few things to think about. Although we did not have a very positive exchange on Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf’s report earlier on and will certainly have to agree to disagree, things may be different with this report.
Allow me to say from the outset that the part of the complex report which Mr Böge dealt with – and this form of collaboration between two committees, with one leading committee and the other giving an opinion and vice versa, worked very well and could perhaps be used as a model for the future – is relatively simple. It will become more difficult once we see the TSE proposal, Mr Byrne. When we have the chance to ask direct questions, the questions which Mr Böge referred to will be asked. Questions will be asked – questions which I shall have to put to you and the Commission representatives in committee – on how things stand with the BSE status of the Member States and other third countries. How will BSE status in fact be defined then? Do you envisage circumstances under which the BSE status will depend on the willingness to apply a BSE test?
And then there is my standing question to you Mr Byrne, a question you certainly already know and which will not surprise you. What about the BSE test? When will you make it compulsory? Perhaps you will do so before Parliament debates the TSE report. Not that I want to put it off, but it would be a gesture, as it were, if you could say: here is the proposed legislation on the BSE test. I know that I am a thorn in your side on this, but sometimes that is my job.
I say quite emphatically, even after the report by Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, who is completely involved in the whole idea, that animal feeding, animal rearing, animal production must be suited to the species and must also, above all, cause no harm or danger to human beings. Cosmetic, medical and other products cannot be excluded on the grounds that they cause no harm or are not dangerous. That is, without doubt, too short, too sweet and too little. You are lucky that Mr Böge’s report only deals with this on the sidelines; with my report you will have to justify yourself more thoroughly and you will have more trouble doing so.
Finally, just one more brief comment, Mr Byrne. We have a new Commission. Whether or not we will agree with the work carried out by this Commission and the President of the Commission, only time will tell. But there is one thing we certainly will not let you get away with and I am sure that, as a lawyer and politician you will understand this. Important issues cannot be regulated in annexes. They belong in the legislative text. I might do the same if I were a Commissioner, because I could simply change an annex under a comitology procedure and I would not always need to work with Parliament, which takes so long and is so difficult. But you must understand that we cannot let you get away with this. In other words, whenever I get the chance, I shall take everything out of the annexes and cram it into the legislative text. And you would be well advised to do likewise from the outset."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples