Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.2.2-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is customary at the beginning of our speeches for us to express gracious sentiments about the good working relationship with the rapporteur. Much as I, of course, appreciate Mr Schnellhardt’s work and efforts, I am, to be honest, somewhat disappointed with the way in which he has gone about things. It is not very upright to negotiate with the Council on your own initiative and to take only your own amendments into consideration. Personally, I think that it does not reflect well on Parliament to agree on a compromise with the Council and at the same time to want to adopt the original amendments. That is not a credible working method.
Today, I should like to take a brief look at five years of food safety and on nearly three years of food hygiene. When it comes to general food legislation, we have jointly decided that food producers shoulder the main responsibility for the safety of their products and that the way in which they do this should be monitored by the government. We are now on the verge of turning back the clock. I do not agree with this, but this is where I am not speaking on behalf of my group.
How did we get into this situation? I think that first of all, we should search our own hearts. The food hygiene dossier is complex and contains hundreds of amendments about all kinds of details. As a result of this, only a few spokesmen are involved in this dossier and it is very easy for outsiders to spread misinformation.
What is it all about? What is crucial is who monitors the food producers. In the light of general food legislation, this question seems straightforward to answer. The producers ensure that their products are up to scratch and the government monitors the final inspection. The Commission, in agreement with the guiding principle that was established for meat producers, particularly pork and veal companies, under the watchful eye of the government, wants to offer the opportunity of accepting their responsibility and of carrying out the monitoring activities themselves. Part of the meat sector also wants to carry this responsibility and call an end to cases of abuse.
There is much opposition to the idea that butchers should inspect their own meat, and rightly so, for the government should have a monitoring role and has a clear task in the inspection. However, giving butchers more responsibility is a positive step. A majority of our group has rejected the idea of the meat sector taking on the responsibility itself. According to them, the staff at meat companies are not capable of monitoring quality, or in a position, to do so. I have a different opinion personally. I think we should move away from authoritarian companies who do not tolerate any criticism from their staff with regard to the quality of their products. I do not think that Parliament should regard the workers in the meat sector as frightened and uninformed people incapable of forming their own opinions. As long as the government has its monitoring role, companies can carry the responsibility themselves.
I therefore urge everyone to support the compromise that we have reached with the Council and to prevent us from adopting the amendments by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, for that is not the right way to go about things."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples