Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-27-Speech-3-366"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060927.27.3-366"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should like to thank Members for all their comments, although some of them seem to be related more to the general regulation on organic products. I hope that next time we have a discussion on this issue we will have a bit more time so that I can go into more detail.
Regarding Amendment 13, a meaningful report cannot be drawn up before the first list of control bodies has been functioning for longer; in any case, not before the date of entry into application of the full regulation on 1 January 2009.
The idea of training of local certifiers is a good one, and we will have to find ways of planning this training. Training support and technical assistance is also foreseen in the official food and feed control regulation.
The idea raised by the rapporteur of a databank seems to be difficult to implement, but I would be willing to look further into it.
The requirement for the control bodies to be accredited in the context of the list of third countries in paragraph 4 is not applicable, as there is governmental supervision in these cases. For the control bodies that are listed in paragraph 5, I agree in principle to the request for formal accreditation, but adequate governmental supervision should also be acceptable as an alternative in that situation. We should also be able to show some flexibility to local bodies in developing countries and in countries at an early stage of development, from whom it is not always feasible to have international accreditation.
I agree with the idea of the supervision of control bodies – I think that it is crucial and essential. But we would prefer a more general wording on supervision. More detailed rules can be set out in the implementing rules; but, as mentioned in my introduction, I would prefer to have a very simple and concise proposal.
To conclude, Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are partially acceptable or acceptable in principle. The other amendments cannot be accepted.
Thank you for the debate. I think – maybe not in the letter, but at least in spirit – we are heading in the same direction."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples