Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.2.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this hygiene package consists of a number of elements, all of which are very important: a proposal on general food hygiene, a proposal on food and animal origin and a proposal on official controls mainly concerning slaughterhouses.
The Council's common position has taken on board the majority of Parliament's amendments from first reading, but there remain differences mainly concerning the following points. How far can hazard analysis and critical control points – HACCP – be implemented in primary production on farms? What flexibility is going to be granted to Member States? Will it be a general clause for comitology, or a more specific rule which allows comitology only within a set of fixed aims, as it would appear the rapporteur prefers? Will we see the self-control of the meat industry by employees working as meat inspectors? Would the flexibility foreseen for small artisanal slaughterhouses be defined by marketing only regionally as a result of requiring the presence of official veterinarians during every slaughter process?
The key issues for my Group at the first reading were basically the direct marketing of food on the farm or at local retailers and flexibility for the processing of traditional products. These are mainly covered by the Council's common position which we very much welcome, because we feel it is important that there be some flexibility for the processing of traditional products and also in relation to artisanal production.
The problem for my Group with the compromise package now proposed by the Council is where the latter insists on extending controls by slaughterhouse employees to include pigs and calves. My Group – and as far as I know the rapporteur – strongly objects to this self-control. It would allow self-policing and it could end up with a blind eye being turned in certain circumstances, depending on how productive some of the slaughterhouses are: so this is not a good idea. It is not in the interests of what we are trying to achieve.
We do not want this point accepted. That is the key issue for us as regards this report. We are pleased that the issues of artisanal and local production of traditional products have been taken into account in the common position."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples