Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-18-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070618.15.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you all heard what the Commissioner said, which, I can honestly say, expressed my feelings exactly. All of us in this room heard it, and we shall take it into account during tomorrow’s vote, too.
What was the starting point? When we held the hearing on 26 June of last year, we soon found that there were very great differences in the implementation of the Regulation. The Council was divided, Parliament was divided, and we really wondered how all this was to be overcome. I regard the fact that we have before us today a compromise involving the Council, the Commission and sections of Parliament – after first reading, mark you – as rather sensational, considering the starting situation. It is a result for all those involved, and so I should like to thank the Commission, the Council and those fellow Members who have helped to work on it: Mrs McAvan, Mr Schlyter, and Mr Maaten of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, to name but a few. Their cooperation was excellent, and indeed this is the only way of achieving a positive result.
Not only did this come together at the drawing board, it was also the result of a clear vote in committee: 58 votes in favour to only 2 against, with 2 abstentions – that was a result we could build on. As the Commissioner said, many of Parliament’s proposals have been implemented. We already agreed back then that the quality of the Regulation had to be improved, it had to include more consumer information, and it had to be brought into line with the internal market. This Regulation was necessary. There had been two regulations and many Acts of Accession, but they could not achieve all this.
How wonderful – there is no system of categories. We are not classifying spirit drinks according to quality – that would have been a very bad thing – but in the field of quality we do have a ban on flavouring spirits. This means that it is forbidden to add flavourings to spirits. I once said, exaggerating somewhat, that I wanted to see spirit drinks falling under the Regulation on spirit drinks, not containing so many chemicals that they ended up under the Regulation on chemicals. What is important, however, is the protection of producers who use proper methods, and we cannot allow – to exaggerate – the production of spirit drinks to become the preparation of toxic cocktails.
The issue of sweetening is another that was pushed through by Parliament. I should like to say to the Commission now that, when we discuss sweetening under the extended comitology procedure, we shall take great care that the addition of sugar is kept within reasonable bounds. Figures have been mentioned: 20 grams per litre, which corresponds to five teaspoons. I have to say that tea with five teaspoons of sugar added starts to lose its appeal! We shall keep an eye on this.
The methanol content of 50 grams per hectolitre in the old Regulation has been reduced to 10 grams per hectolitre. This had been a health problem. The hydrocyanic acid content of stone-fruit marc spirit has been reduced by 3 grams to 7 grams per hectolitre of pure alcohol. These are achievements that cannot be praised enough. The new proposal also reflects traditional methods. We have been at pains to ensure, in particular, that traditionally produced products can continue to be produced. That is a very important point.
Moving on, now, to vodka: a very contentious issue. I could have lived with the Commission proposal that the raw-material basis of vodka always be included on the label; but the traditional producing countries, for example Poland and Finland, objected. I took account of these objections, which related to traditions, and said: in that case, we shall exempt potatoes and cereals from the labelling requirement, and only the other agricultural raw materials used to produce vodka must be stated. That was the right solution as, when I look at the amendments that have been tabled and hear what the Commissioner has to say, I can already tell that all the amendments stating otherwise will fail to gain any support from within the Council, the Commission or the WTO. We are right to exempt these two products from the labelling requirement, in order to take account of traditions in Poland and Finland. We must not be tempted to introduce legislative amendments banning the manufacture of products when there is no basis for this in either health considerations or internal-market rules or consumer-protection rules. That would be taking things too far. We have always done things that way in previous legislation, too.
Therefore, I would appeal to you to support the compromise tomorrow. There is no alternative compromise. Failure to adopt the present proposal will render all the other parts of the compromise invalid. The Commission will then try again to enforce its ideas, which were strongly contested, the Council will start quarrelling again, and we shall have no regulation for the coming years. I should like to point that out so that no one tries to say later on that they would have voted differently if I had only told them that. That is the reason for my request. I look forward to the discussion."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples