Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-10-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030410.1.4-008"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, I do not want to use my speaking time to give a technical account of the work carried out and its significance because I believe you are all familiar with that; this is certainly not presumption on my part but an acknowledgement of the clearly prodigious efforts of the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, manifested, first and foremost, in the tabling of a large number of amendments. I can only thank them for this, for there is no doubt that, over and above the general intention of introducing one’s own ideas into a report, the ultimate goal is to improve the report itself and its effectiveness in the common, general interest. Likewise, I cannot fail to thank the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups for their sensitivity and for their goodwill in drafting at least eight compromise amendments to take account of concepts, objectives and proposals.
My personal opinion, therefore, is that the product of the work of the Committee on the Environment, which is now before the House, has much broader backing than might have been expected when the Commission first submitted its proposal to Parliament. As I said before, I am not saying this out of pride but in order to give credit to all the members of the committee who have worked on the report.
Of course, we cannot claim that the report covers all aspects of the issue of detergents. We still have to analyse and express a position on a number of points. We have to decide what line to take on phosphates, for example, what line to take on the anaerobic biodegradability of surfactants, and again, what level to set with regard to the biodegradability of other components of detergents. Incidentally, it therefore appeared necessary to all concerned to set a deadline within which to ask the Commission to express its opinion on the rest of the matter. It can be said, however, that our primary objective in amending the proposal in question was to make the text and related instruments more usable, more functional and more cohesive.
This, in any case, was the line we followed in our work. I must stress that, as well as seeking to make the rules proposed more usable, functional and cohesive, we took care to pursue two further objectives. The first was to employ practical sensitivity with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises, a particularly good example of this being the establishment of the derogation, without – we trust – giving any less consideration to the need to provide ever-increasing protection of the environment, public health and animal welfare. The second, in the context of the – at last binding – labelling system, concerns the goal of increasing the awareness of consumers when they make choices, without in any way detracting from the valuable work of consumer protection organisations but, on the contrary, enhancing it.
That said, I would like to focus briefly on the fact that the regulation in question certainly does not cover all the questions related to detergents, and I am not criticising the Commission’s work here but pointing out two further characteristic aspects of both this and previous provisions on detergents. The first – as I suggested at the start of my speech – is the underlying approach to the issue: the Commission took the approach of phasing in the legislation. The second, which almost justifies the first, is the need for recourse to a third body, in this case to a scientific committee, to implement the legislation.
When amending the regulation in question, we have attempted to assess the tasks entrusted to the committee and bring those considered to be political rather than technical before the House for it to study and vote on. The rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs worked together to achieve this undertaking too. Since, however, there are both technical and political aspects – and there are – and since it is true that the work carried out in the Committee on the Environment has been productive and enjoyed remarkably broad support, then I find it difficult to understand why some of my colleagues, without wishing to undermine everyone’s individual right to do so, have tabled further amendments in plenary.
In any case, in this regard, I have to say that I support Amendments Nos 47, 52, 53 and 60, which indisputably make additional important contributions which complement the current provisions. I also have to say that my feelings are essentially neutral as regards Amendments Nos 56 and 61, which merely change the position of points within the regulation itself, whereas I have to express firm rejection of the remaining amendments, certainly not – to conclude – because I disapprove of their content in principle, nor even because they partially belie the consensus expressed in committee, but because, should they be accepted, they would not achieve what is undeniably the desired objective of the text to be issued, namely providing better protection, but would compromise the cohesiveness, functionality and usability which I mentioned earlier, which is consistent with that phasing-in of the legislation that is based on the scientific approach."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples