Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-11-Speech-1-202"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Circulation of compound feedingstuffs (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061211.19.1-202"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-11-Speech-1-2032
lpv:speaker	lp:Albert Jan Maat2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2007-04-09)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2007-04-09)3 substitute; BUDG (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; DROI (2004-09-28--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Christen Democratisch Appèl (2004-07-20--2007-04-09)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-20--2007-03-14)3 member; AGRI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I, too, should like to thank the rapporteur, and not least his staff, for their commitment to this report. Whilst this is evidently an interesting report, it is also a controversial one, and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has in any case made a correction to the Commission’s proposal. This means that Article 1(1)(b) of the 2002 Directive needed to be deleted in accordance with the proposal that was issued further to the European Court of Justice’s ruling. During the exchange of views, it soon became apparent that there are very different opinions about the labelling of mixed feed. This is not a matter of the exact designation, but of whether we really want to have a debate about the open declaration articles in the relevant legislation. As I see it, this open declaration should be exposed, since the present regulation in this field is not workable and still not transparent, because there are, after all, still labels around which specify 110% of ingredients. In addition, too little consideration is being given to the intellectual property of the feed industry which, as a result of present legislation, is forced to make its recipes public. This is detrimental not only to industry, but also to the farmer, for the consequence of it is that our competitors outside the European Union know exactly what we are doing. Also, present legislation discourages innovation in the feed industry, and that does not benefit farmers either. Unfortunately, it transpired that the deletion of Article 1(1)(b) was at stake and that, according to the legal offices of the Commission, the Council and of this House, meant that the other articles in the legislation could not be amended. I have to say that the coordinators of all parties shared this view. This is why the European People’s Party would like a prompt review of the whole of feed legislation, not least as a means of guaranteeing complete transparency. When I consider the amendments, I have to say that the European People’s Party is shocked that the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe tabled an amendment to another article, while their own coordinator declared this amendment to be inadmissible. What we in the PPE-DE Group want is a prompt review, and we welcome the Council’s pledge in this respect, to carry out a complete overhaul in the first half of 2007; I assume that the Commissioner will be acting in accordance with this Commission proposal to the Council."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph