Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-09-12-Speech-3-470-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120912.26.3-470-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, honourable Members, today’s vote in Parliament marks an important development in the European Union’s agricultural product quality policy. As a member of the European Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have always attached great importance to this subject, for I believe that the future of the European agricultural product industry, particularly on the international market, resides in its quality and diversity.
Therefore, in a spirit of compromise, the Commission was reluctant to oppose a qualified majority in favour of the Presidency’s text and wishes to make the following statement: the Commission stresses that it is against the spirit of Regulation No 182/2011 to invoke Article 5(4), second subparagraph, point b), systematically. Recourse to this provision must respond to a specific need to waive the general rule whereby the Commission can adopt a draft implementing act when no opinion is provided.
Given that this is an exception to the general rule provided for in Article 5(4), recourse to point b) of the second subparagraph cannot simply be considered to be a discretionary power of the legislator, but must be interpreted strictly and must therefore be justified.
To conclude, I should like to note that the two institutions have thought it appropriate to continue discussions on trading standards, in particular, and also on other points which had initially been envisaged in this draft regulation within the framework of the reform of the common agricultural policy currently being discussed, and the Commission will provide the support needed to ensure a successful outcome.
The Commission welcomes the compromise reached during the trialogue of 20 June. I would like to point out that this trialogue took place in a truly constructive atmosphere, which I welcome, because we managed to reach a balanced and satisfactory outcome. The end result of this work is a compromise in the best meaning of the word: everyone has given a little or ceded on one point or another, including on important points, and everyone has also achieved genuine improvements.
Ms García Pérez is of the view that the Commission’s proposals were not very ambitious. However, on other points, the Commission too expected Parliament to be more ambitious in relation to its own proposals. So finally I think that we have managed to reach a compromise which is satisfactory for all parties.
I would particularly like to thank Ms García Pérez for her constructive approach and her endeavour to understand the reasons behind the Commission’s proposal on points that I think are essential if we want to be able to say that there has been an improvement in the agricultural product quality policy. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteur as well as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which contributed a great deal to this project, and also the Council, the Danish Presidency and the previous Presidencies for their hard work.
We now have a well-balanced, satisfactory text on the table. It is true to say that the future regulation on quality systems will allow us to reinforce and simplify European policy on quality. From now on, we shall have a single instrument for geographical indications, designations of origin, traditional specialities and optional quality mentions. It will bring significant improvements to the protection scheme for these quality instruments that will create greater visibility for consumers.
This framework for a coherent, strengthened, quality policy will undoubtedly best serve all the different producers, products and consumers in the European Union.
I can therefore conclude by confirming that the Commission supports this political agreement and I hope that Parliament will adopt it tomorrow.
To answer Ms García Pérez’ question concerning the specific mention for mountain areas, we shall finalise the proposal as soon as the impact assessment has been carried out.
I would like to finish by saying a few words about comitology. During the trialogue on the draft regulation, the Commission agreed not to adopt the draft implementing act if the committee responsible for it did not provide an opinion, in which case Article 5(4), third subparagraph of Regulation No 182/2011 will apply. That goes against the Commission’s general rule, but in this particular case, agreement could not have been reached if it had made an objection on this point."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples