Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-285"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.8.3-285"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to welcome the conclusion of the first reading of the revision of the machinery directive and I would especially like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Wieland, and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market.
Amendments that the Commission could accept in full, or in part, are Amendments Nos 2, 3, 14 to 18, 23, 27, 42, 45, 47, 49, 56, 57, 59, 63, 66, 69, 72, 74 to 76 and 80. Amendments that the Commission could accept in principle are Amendments Nos 22, 30, 41, 51, 61, 62 and 64. Finally the Commission cannot accept all other amendments: Amendments Nos 1, 4 to 13, 19 to 21, 24 to 26, 28, 29, 31 to 40, 44, 48, 50, 55, 58, 60, 65, 67, 70, 71, 73, 77 to 79, 82 and 83.
The aim of the proposal is, as has been stressed by the speakers, to enhance legal certainty by clarifying the directive's scope and meaning and by removing ambiguities that have led to different interpretations. At the same time the highest possible level of health protection and consumer safety should be ensured.
The European mechanical engineering sector which is subject to the machinery directive contains a very large range of products: machines, mechanical appliances and components. In 1998 it produced goods to the value of EUR 300 billion. It employs over 2.2 million highly skilled people in the 15 Member States. The sector's production volume exceeds Japan's and rivals that of the United States of America.
The European Union is the world's largest exporter of machines and mechanical equipment, ahead of the USA and Japan. Based on the experience of the past 12 years, the proposal reflects the Commission's determination to cut red tape whilst facilitating compliance with European Union legislation, taking due account of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. It is also fully in line with the recommendations of expert groups acting within the framework of better regulation of the internal market. The proposal and its implications have been extensively discussed with a very wide audience of stakeholders.
I would like to emphasise that the aim of the proposal is to improve areas that have proved to cause difficulties in terms of application. Many of the numerous proposed amendments improve the Commission proposal. Some could be included in a revised proposal as they stand, whilst others could be retained in part, or in principle.
Some proposed amendments concern detailed, highly technical items and do not add any value and will therefore not be part of a revised proposal. Still others are outside the scope we perceive as the correct scope for the machinery directive.
Concerning Amendment No 5 on fairground equipment, the Commission is aware of the question and we are prepared to launch a study into the matter. We are currently preparing a Commission communication on the functioning of the new approach to be published this autumn. The new approach to technical harmonisation and standardisation provides for the free movement of goods and a high level of health, consumer and environmental protection.
We do not want to interfere in the general debate on commitology. We want to concentrate on the practical application of the current directive. We therefore prefer to hold back the discussion of subjects that are common to the around 20 new-approach directives until the future communication that I have already mentioned, in order to have a coherent approach.
Practical application of the current machinery directive has shown a need for a regulatory committee procedure in order to resolve technical matters that do not infringe the democratic control by the European Parliament. We also share the principle that there is a need to improve the complete texts of amended directives, as suggested in Amendment No 13. However, this amendment goes beyond the scope of the machinery directive. Therefore, for legal reasons, we cannot accept this amendment. In practice, consolidated texts of amended directives are often presented on the Commission website, as will be the case for the amended lifts directive. Consequently, the Commission position on amendments is as follows."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples