Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-10-Speech-1-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011210.4.1-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, today's debate is the culmination of a long process which began in the days of the BSE epidemic. It is in a sense a proposal that comes as much from this House as from the other institutions of the European Union because our two temporary committees of inquiry culminated in the recommendation that there should be a body of this kind. One Commission fell, another came into office accepting that something of this sort should happen and it is that proposal from President Prodi, driven forward by the Commissioner, which we are dealing with today.
It is, therefore, the work of many hands and if this debate today is considered, calm and, I hope, rational it is because of the extent to which the three sides in the triangle of forces have attempted to come to an agreed conclusion by the time of this second reading debate, in order to expedite the introduction of the new authority itself. There should not be any undue delay. If we can avoid the conciliation stage, we will do so.
There are still perhaps a few reservations which I shall refer to in a moment, but we have come to a point where we believe we have a consensus in this House. We certainly have a majority in this House and I should like to thank the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs of the other political groups, particularly Mr Bowis, Mrs Paulsen and Mr Staes for the work they have done right through since the original White Paper. I would also like to thank my own researcher, Michelle Smythe, and everyone from the Commission and the Council, under both the Swedish and Belgian presidencies, who have brought this forward. Since Mrs Aelvoet has taken a bit of a pounding today I shall pay tribute to her part in it also.
We have now agreed on a timetable to get the new authority up and running. To do that there is a series of specific compromises: 16 new amendments which broadly find favour with the Commission – I hope Mr Byrne will be able to indicate that – and the Council.
Firstly, we had to adopt an unusual procedure for one point that remains in some doubt, that is, the site of the new authority. We wanted to set out criteria for the site of the new authority as we believe we should. The Council, however, were not prepared to accept them in the body of the text. But you do not throw away the whole report for that: we have put it into the legislative resolution and we hope that you, Madam President, will be able to set out exactly what our reasoning is. The decision will have to be made on merit and not through the kind of political horsetrading that is currently being whispered about. It would be the worst possible start if this body were sited in an inappropriate place for the worst of reasons.
We tabled the compromise amendments in order to bring forward the major priorities that this Parliament has always emphasised: firstly, a parliamentary hearing for the proposed executive director of the new authority and a three-month period for Parliament to express its opinion on the candidates for a small and tightly-focused management board. That is the board that will meet in public and will make its opinions equally public so the citizens of Europe can see what it recommends. It will have a role to play in risk analysis, risk communication and risk management, where its advice is appropriate. These are substantial powers. In addition, this legislation gives protection to those who want to report on unsafe practices in the food and feed business. Citizens have a duty to tell the truth and I believe we have guaranteed that.
If the 16 compromise amendments, and the others already agreed with the presidency, are passed, we can proceed to set up the new EFSA. The problem of BSE, for example, is still with us: cases of it have been notified in two previously clear Member States this week. Everybody knows that food and animal feed have to be safer. The procedures whereby such products come in and out of the European Union have to be open, transparent and, above all, safe. Some of the practices of industrialised farming have threatened us all. Producers and consumers alike have everything to gain from a monitoring authority which protects the interests of all and is beholden to none. On that basis I commend this proposal to the House."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples