Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-06-Speech-4-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010906.4.4-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is about five years ago that the Council consulted us on the proposal to simplify seven vertical directives on foodstuffs. The aim of those proposals was to simplify the existing legislation, which contains far too much detail, or to replace it by directives containing only the essential requirements. In that way, they would be easier to implement and better correspond to the horizontal directives. This is a commendable effort which is in line with the expectations of both consumers and those who are involved in other ways. We, the PPE-DE Group, are keen to lend our support in this connection.
We have established that the Directive on cocoa and chocolate products, which also originally formed part of this package and which had to undergo the lengthiest legislative procedure, namely that of co-decision, was the first one we managed to complete. As for the five other directives of the package of seven, the five we are debating today, we will ultimately require more than five years to complete the simplification procedure. We do wonder if we should not aspire to faster working methods and other decision-making methods, for we do not believe that that is what the public wants.
The PPE-DE Group would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work. The delay is certainly not due to him, but due to the fact that the Council has fundamentally changed certain components, thus necessitating fresh advice from us. On behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I can say that we are in agreement with the report as it emerged from the vote in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. That is the case for all components of the package, except for fruit juices. On these, our view differs slightly from that in the report, but that was also apparent in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. I do not believe, therefore, that I need to go into any more detail here regarding the reasoning, motives and strands of thought behind that difference of view.
However, I do not want to conceal the fact – and I should like to devote the rest of my speaking time to this – that we in our group, further to these issues arising, have held a serious debate on the issue of whether it is really up to a Parliament to discuss such detailed measures with 626 Members. This is creating problems for us. Parliament is being slated for this from outside. That does not mean that we underestimate the importance of food legislation. We realise that the detail is important in this connection, but we do wonder whether, with the material being at such a high technical level, we really are the people best placed to take the decisions and whether we should inconvenience 626 MEPs with these kinds of far-reaching, technical measures. The question we asked ourselves is: should we not move towards two kinds of derived legislation, one on which Parliament deliberates and another which, surely, should be entrusted to the executive? This discussion has certainly not reached its conclusion, but I should welcome a discussion which includes groups other than the PPE-DE Group."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples