Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-216"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.7.3-216"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the regulation which we are now examining forms part of a series of interventions designed to rectify the situation inherited from the mad cow crisis and introduce a policy to prevent such situations from arising in the future and restore consumer confidence in beef products.
The regulation therefore introduces a system comprising various techniques for identifying animals in order to guarantee traceability, i.e. the possibility of tracing every piece of meat bought by the consumer to the animal from which it derives. It is already a highly technical and unwieldy system.
Provision is also made for a beef and beef product labelling system. The product label will give the consumer rudimentary but crucial and useful information on the meat being purchased.
This endeavour started four years ago. There has been a long delay, which we have frequently criticised. We all remember the battles with the other institutions of the Union last December when we suspected that they might postpone and delay application of the regulation yet again.
We now have a situation which I shall explain in simplified terms. After the first reading in Parliament, the Council approved a common position. This common position incorporates most of the amendments made by the European Parliament. The wording of the regulation has been simplified and its application made easier. The monitoring system has been strengthened. However, the common position does not include our amendment abolishing the reference on the compulsory label on the meat to the category of animal from which the meat derives. We abolished this information in order to simplify the label, give the consumer clearer information and reduce the cost to meat companies.
The argument for keeping the reference to the category of animal is that this reference responds to consumer needs, habits and preferences, at least in certain countries of the Union. The question, therefore, is do we wish to insist on amending the current wording of the regulation? This may take us into a conciliation procedure, thereby delaying application of the regulation and the European Parliament, let me remind you, is in favour of applying the regulation at the earliest possible date and has blamed and continues to blame the other institutions of the European Union for the intolerable delay. I refer to the amendment concerning the category of animal, not a second amendment referring to minced meat, because I do not think that it meets any particular need. Minced meat is, in any case, already connected to the animal from which it derives with the arrangements which we have in the regulation and the other matters are technical and production matters and we did well not to change the wording of the regulation.
I should now like to address the matter of the Committee on the Environment, for which I have the honour of acting as rapporteur. The Committee on the Environment voted by an adequate majority to insist that the text be amended. It approved this basic amendment abolishing the reference to the category of animal. Your rapporteur is not convinced of the need, usefulness or advisability of amending the text and feels obliged, to his chagrin, to recommend the opposite approach, i.e. that we refrain from adopting any amendments and accept the common position. I trust that the wisdom of the House will find the best and safest way of ensuring that this regulation is applied quickly and solve what I hope is a temporary difference of view between the rapporteur and his committee."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples