Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-04-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011004.1.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the spirit in which Members have spoken in this House today, and also on previous occasions, over months and even longer, in addressing this issue. It is surely one of the issues which European and, I might say, world public opinion cares about most, as well as being one of the most important for Europe’s identity. There are arguments on which Europe has intervened effectively but which do not receive the general support of public opinion and the citizens. There are other, more specific and sector-based topics, on the other hand, which have received approval. This, however, is a general topic which has received the general support of the citizens.
On reading the documentation relating to this procedure as a whole, on how it developed and how it is concluded today, I find a vagueness in many chapters and recitals, as well as in many expressions that are or will be binding on this subject. It is a vagueness that is quite common in acts of the European Parliament, the Commission or the Council, but which, in this case, could perhaps have been more fully corrected.
My concern is not the delay in reaching the position that is emerging today in the report, but rather that more specific detail should be given regarding interventions, the form these take, controls and the procedures by which they are enforced, and the flexibility and dignity of the controls – in other words they should not be humiliating for the producer or the consumer. I think that, in this sense, we could have been more specific and, at the same time, more respectful of the rights of producers and distributors, but always, of course, in the consumer’s interest.
For instance, I find that expressions such as ‘dangerous’ and ‘serious risk’ are insufficient; they could certainly be used in a standard or a regulation – at national or other levels – but, as these arguments are so delicate and liable to affect the daily lives of consumers and thus of society and the community, we could, perhaps, have been more explicit.
As for the future, bearing in mind what I have said regarding controls, I think that the three-yearly report required of the Commission should be drawn up at shorter intervals, without waiting three years, so as to prevent situations from arising over the three years that need to be remedied with specific provisions. That is why I believe that this point may warrant further consideration."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples