Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.7.2-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mrs González Álvarez, and Mr Whitehead and Mr Lange for their very comprehensive contribution to the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on general product safety. There is a formal revision provision in the original directive. The revision coincided with a reinforced commitment by the Commission to safeguard the health and safety of consumers. The revised directive will progressively lead to a substantial improvement in the possibilities for dealing with safety problems of non-food products.
The Council common position takes account of the fundamental points of the amended proposal adopted by the Commission in the light of the first reading opinion. 21 out of 30 amendments from the first reading have been incorporated in part or in substance in the common position. Many of the proposed amendments of the González Álvarez recommendation are an improvement to the text and can therefore be accepted by the Commission.
Allow me to address the amendments with which the Commission cannot agree. First Amendments Nos 2 and 9 reinstate the text of the Commission's original proposal for a ban on exports of dangerous products withdrawn from the EU market following an emergency decision. Amendment No 13 justifies this with the risk of reimportation to the Community market of such products which have been exported. The compromise in the common position would make it possible for the Commission to provide for exemptions from an outright ban on the export of such products. This was accepted by the Commission, because it was considered by many Member States as a safeguard necessary for them to accept the very principle of a ban; moreover the compromise leaves it up to the Commission to decide whether waiving the ban is justified. The risk of reimportation of exported goods can be kept under control with the normal mechanism of customs and market surveillance. Overall, I consider that the impact of this exemption would be very limited, would be under very tight control and supervision by the Commission itself and obviously would only operate in circumstances where it was justified, clearly rationalised and clearly acceptable and not just to me, but to the entire Commission.
Secondly, Amendment No 3 introduces a requirement in an article that external certification should be regarded as a proof of conformity with the directive. The Commission can only accept a reference in a recital that such certification can facilitate proving such compliance. Thirdly, Amendment No 11 invites the Commission to submit proposals related to the safety of services before a specified date. The Commission is in fact already analysing and considering this issue as it has announced in a statement. Recital 1 would include a reference to these initiatives, as suggested by Amendment No 1.
Finally, Amendment No 12 seeks to limit the export ban so that it shall not be applied when a product has temporarily been banned from the Community market for the period needed for further safety investigations. It cannot be justified to permit exports of products banned from the Community market on the basis of a potential serious risk. In my view, this action must protect consumers outside the European Union in the same way as it protects consumers within the European Union; and it occurs to me that if an emergency measure is being taken in this way, it is highly probable that it is an emergency measure because of the nature of the danger involved and very often the most serious emergencies result from the fact that the danger is the greatest.
If that is the case and if my assessment is correct, it means there is a greater need for this emergency proposal to apply not only to consumers within the European Union, but also to consumers outside the European Union. Moreover, it is clear from this legislation that the evaluation as to whether it should apply in this way or not, will be undertaken by the appropriate committee which will be charged with this kind of work, experienced in doing this kind of work, which does not act precipitously or in a manner that would not fully protect the interests of consumers. The committee will only operate where there is a clear and serious danger to consumers. Having explained why the Commission cannot accept Amendments Nos 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, I can inform you that the Commission can, in principle or in reworded versions, accept Amendments Nos 1, 4 to 8 and 10, as these amendments constitute an improvement and clarification of the proposal.
To conclude, I wish to thank Mrs González Álvarez again for the excellent report which can be broadly supported by the Commission and on those amendments with which the Commission cannot agree, I am convinced that a satisfactory conclusion can be found as identified and stated by Mr Whitehead. I hope that this will be achieved as quickly as possible in the next stage of the regulatory process."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples