Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-14-Speech-1-049"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010514.5.1-049"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank Mrs Paulsen and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy for the broad support given to this Commission proposal concerning controls on animal nutrition. I am also grateful to this Chamber, because adoption of this proposal will mean the fulfilment of one of my first commitments to improve food quality and safety.
As you know, the proposal was articulated on three main issues. The first is the obligation for Member States to have contingency plans in place to deal with feed emergencies. Secondly, it will provide a legal basis for the adoption of safeguard measures for products originating within the Community. Thirdly, it will provide a system to exchange information in the field of animal nutrition, with particular reference to a rapid alert system.
The common position adopted by the Council last February, which was also endorsed by the Commission, improved the Commission proposal. The three main issues of the proposal were properly addressed in the common position, which also includes many of the suggestions made by Parliament in first reading.
I am satisfied that this agrees with the most fundamental parts of the common position. Concerning the amendments tabled for this Parliament, the Commission can accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4, which will improve the clarity of the text. The Commission can also accept Amendment No 5, because it takes into consideration the evolution of other important legislation in this sector, such as the TSE regulation approved by the European Parliament at the last Parliament part-session. In principle, the Commission accepts the legitimate expectation of informing the European Parliament on the inspection results. However, the way Amendment No 6 is drafted cannot be accepted because it does not foresee informing the other Member States for the sake of consistency. I understand that it was intended to put forward an oral amendment to include this reference; and if that, is done, I am in a position to accept that amendment too. If that oral amendment is tabled, it will take the place of Amendment No 5. So be it, the Commission can accept that.
In summary, I am pleased to say that the Commission can accept Amendments No 1, 2, 3 and 4. Amendment No 5 is accepted while Amendment No 6 is not accepted unless in the form that I suggest, which I understand Parliament may put forward.
The five amendments to the Paulsen report are correct in terms of the principles and I hope that the Council will also agree that they deserve to be incorporated in the final directive.
Goodwill has been shown for this dossier by all the institutions and I hope that the final directive can be approved quickly. I am grateful for the constructive approach taken to this dossier by the European Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples