Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-23-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020923.8.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the first task of anyone who has served on the Conciliation Committee must be to congratulate Mrs Paulsen for her drive and tenacity in surviving a complex conciliation which was at times almost overturned by some very unorthodox manoeuvres. That would not have been right for Parliament, and I am glad that the various parties to this agreement converged in this way.
Mrs Paulsen had to keep her nerve because events elsewhere, including elections, were bringing special pressures to bear on the way in which these events were being looked at. Yet she was vindicated the whole time by the saga of continuing food contamination scandals which went on in a number of Member States right through 2002 and in the way in which this matter has worked out.
We know all about full traceability for specified risk materials in the United Kingdom because we were forced in the wake of BSE to introduce, almost at gun-point, something which is now going to be uniform across the Community. This is all to the good. I believe that the number of by-products that have found their way into the food chain this year show us that perhaps even now, and later when this regulation is fully enforced, there will still need to be vigilance to ensure that above all else the principle of separation is rigorously upheld.
I turn to the questions mentioned already by Mr Goodwill regarding the problem some Member States have experienced. I am glad that we have found a solution which leaves a temporary period of transition, rather than shrugging aside the need to bring this matter to a conclusion.
I make no comment on the situation as regards the Austrian and German industries and confine myself to the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom we had certain specific problems: perhaps the Commissioner can make a note of them, because in the final statement we will need to see how these are addressed in connection with the transition.
The first question, familiar to Mr Goodwill, is of small incinerators which have been used as an extremely sensible way of destroying fallen stock on site with the minimum period of contamination risk. We need to be sure, during the transition period for inspection, that the reasons why these have been used, and used effectively, are fully understood by the Commission and that they are not simply arbitrarily removed from the scene.
The second area is the question of cooking oil. The United Kingdom is now prepared to accept, rightly, that the transition period should be two years instead of four years and that in that time, given that this whole directive is only going to take effect something like eight or nine months from now, there will have been an adequate period for the industry concerned to adjust its practices – and probably its profits – to other ways of disposing of this, particularly in the field of biofuels.
Lastly, I am glad the United Kingdom withdrew its objections relating to the application for a transition period for the land application of blood from slaughterhouses. This is a pretty repulsive habit. We could not have justified it and am glad that the United Kingdom withdrew its objections. In this matter, too, the principle of cleanliness and separation should be paramount. Mrs Paulsen has showed us the way and it is up to us to follow."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples