Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-16-Speech-4-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001116.5.4-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Yesterday’s debate on mad cow disease was an exemplary one in many respects.
The Commission is clearly envisaging no more than half-way measures, which will take away from and not add to the countries with the most stringent safety, whereas, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, it should be giving Member States back the freedom of action they need to protect their people effectively, to ensure their safety, taking account of public opinion in their country, the political resolve there, the scale of the epidemic in their country and the place of the sectors involved in that country’s economy and their society.
Because of the inability of all the European institutions, the Council, the Commission and Parliament, to define an appropriate Community policy that responds to the safety needs of the Member States most directly concerned, problems will arise in deciding whether it is the constraints of the single market or the health and safety needs of our people that come first.
How, indeed, can we restore consumer confidence in France and prevent the collapse of the sectors linked to stock-farming if, on the one hand, we put a total ban on the use of meat-and-bone meal by French farmers while at the same time authorising imports of meat from Member States that continue to feed their animals with meat-and-bone meal and refuse to carry out tests?
We must strictly respect the wishes of those Member States that intend to put food safety and consumer health above all other concerns, their resolve to give priority to scientifically based decisions and to the precautionary principle in regard to any measures they take, while choosing the middle road between the positions of the various partners, and especially those who are most lax. Otherwise it would become quite clear that the conduct of Community bodies is not being guided by the principle of subsidiarity.
Let me point to the key role the UEN Group, and also the very coherent draft resolution we tabled, played in ensuring that it took place. We finally agreed to co-sign the joint draft resolution and we are delighted it was adopted by a very large majority, despite its inadequacies and weaknesses. At the same time, we keenly regret that the amendments our group tabled were not adopted.
We consider it crucial, however, for the Community budget to help implement the new safety measures imposed on stock-farmers, and especially on all those working in the beef sector who are hard hit by the loss of consumer confidence. It is equally crucial to demand the immediate resumption, in the framework of the WTO, of the talks on the provisions of the Marrakech agreement relating to oilseed, an agreement which goes very much against European producers, so as to prevent the ban on meat-and-bone meal from resulting in mass imports of oilseed that may contain genetically modified organisms.
Above all, yesterday’s debate highlighted the differences of opinion on how to deal with the crisis: differences between Member States, differences of political approach, differences between the Community institutions. There are deep-seated differences on the question of meat-and-bone meal and also on the subject of tests.
So we are now facing an absolutely fundamental safety problem affecting the public health of our peoples and the very future of an entire industry that plays a decisive role in the social balance in some of our Member States.
In the face of this crisis, we cannot therefore confine ourselves to half-measures or to compromise provisions, i.e. to options that are totally inappropriate when what we should be doing is applying the precautionary principle by taking the relevant measures to ensure the maximum safety of our peoples.
The debate has shown that the Council Presidency and the Commission are very much at sea on this issue. It was rather pathetic to see the Council Presidency try to pass the buck by putting its salvation in the hands of the future European Food Safety ‘Authority’, as though the fact that it was European were in itself a guarantee of absolute trustworthiness.
The accusations flying around on all sides in yesterday’s debate – ‘The Council is to blame!’ ‘The Member States are to blame!’ ‘The Commission is to blame!’ – show the extent to which the Community machinery actually works rather like a system for the reciprocal denial of responsibility, at the expense of the sole purpose of the debate: the effective protection of the public health of our people.
For its part, the Commission had to note the wide divergence of views on the remedies needed to contain the crisis. It decided it was a good idea to pour derision on the protective measures adopted by some Member States, in particular with its reference to ‘magic’ in regard to the total ban on meat-and-bone meal. While denouncing the lax approach taken by some Member States, it certainly did not point out its own reluctance to drag France before the Court of Justice because it quite appropriately decided to maintain its embargo on British beef."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples