Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-13-Speech-2-299"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040113.13.2-299"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner Liikanen, two years ago when Parliament began looking at the regulation in question, it seemed truly unthinkable that the legislative process could be settled with almost unanimous agreement. Yet, with the vote tomorrow and the conclusion of the second reading, we can say that the process is essentially concluded with the agreement of all those concerned. It must be said that the initial Commission text radically reformed the provisions in question, yet the amendments made to the original text were not at all minor. The definition of ‘surfactant’, additional tests, the derogation from authorisation, labelling, more and better information for consumers, are all aspects that genuinely broaden environmental protection and human health protection and that take into consideration the well-being of animals within the context of research for the development of products.
It must also be stressed that the text in question considers the difficulties of small and medium-sized enterprises, for which the procedures have been simplified, without disregarding the necessary protection. I will not expand any further my explanation of the text that I hope Parliament will tomorrow be able to adopt with a large majority. Instead, I would like to thank all the groups and their shadow rapporteurs who, during this long phase, drew up the text in question after very effective dialogue. I feel that everyone can find reason to be satisfied with aspects or sections of the text in terms of what was constructively contributed and that they will, therefore, find they can agree with the overall text in terms of the afore-mentioned assessments.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the Commission for being willing to reconsider its proposals and for the commitment there was to harmonise a text, which is certainly not easy, to make it satisfactory in view of all the respective points of view. I must add that, even when faced with a continuous exchange of proposals and with understanding everyone’s demands, we also prepared a legislative product with the Commission that met with broad satisfaction. It is true that an important contribution was also made to this text by the Council, which, faced with the immense commitment of the Italian Presidency that has just come to an end, effectively followed the text’s progress and intervened at once, just when it seemed that the common position, which was aimed precisely at opening a second reading, would be delayed; nor do I want to forget the commitment and interest shown by the Irish Government delegation long before it assumed the current Presidency, thus showing a real desire to best define the text in question.
Having said that, as a signal of the long road together, I refuse to believe that the only point on which there seem to be differences can really be a reason to start the conciliation procedure. I am referring to the provision for revision where the Commission commits to providing Parliament and the Council with a report on the anaerobic biodegradation of surfactants and on the biodegradation of other components within five years, and to put forward proposals on phosphates within three years. The problem, however, does not seem to be so much this, but the possibility of this happening in the next parliamentary term, and this because the standard phrase on the entry into force of the current regulation would, in fact, prevent the afore-mentioned commitment being made good within the next parliamentary term. As we know, compromise texts have been presented on which there is, as has been said, general agreement.
The solution to the problem that I have just explained is contained in the afore-mentioned texts. I am sure that all of the groups will be happy with this solution and, appealing to the Commission, I would like to hope that the matter could be happily resolved so as to conclude a somewhat problematic procedure in a generally satisfactory manner."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples