Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-01-Speech-3-222"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060201.20.3-222"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report I am presenting on behalf on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has substantially changed the Commission proposal. It was adopted by 28 votes in favour, with one abstention.
I propose accepting the deregulation of sizes, which is the Commission’s chosen solution in taking account of the case-law in the
case. The Commission also proposes retaining mandatory ranges in some specific sectors: wines, spirits, soluble coffee and white sugar. The Commission calls for this derogation to be restricted to a period of 20 years.
The members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection immediately questioned the relevance of the proposal and the quality of the impact study on which it is based. I was therefore led to propose that other basic products be subject to mandatory ranges. They are coffee, butter, rice, pasta and drinking milk. The ranges I propose are quite extensive in terms of intervals, not to mention the fact that, below the smallest size and above the largest, there are no restrictions whatsoever. I also propose that it be possible to review the arrangement in eight years’ time, and not in 20 years’ time as the Commission proposes.
Why is the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection presenting you with this proposal? Firstly, to protect the consumers, particularly those most vulnerable, such as the elderly and the partially sighted, who have far from fully understood the unit pricing laid down in 1998. Next, to take account of the independent impact study commissioned by our committee and confirming that deregulation would carry risks for the consumer and that it would not lead to greater competition between producers and distributors. Finally, because better lawmaking does not mean no lawmaking at all. As Lacordaire said in the 1830s: between the strong and the weak, it is liberty that oppresses and the law that sets free. You will see that this apparently insignificant and technical text enables us to ask important questions.
To conclude, I will highlight three factors: an impact study that is funded by Parliament itself and that depends neither on the Commission nor on pressure groups, which is a first; a concept of ‘better lawmaking’ inspired only by the interests of our fellow citizens and not by an ideological attitude; and a concern to retain our national cultures, because our nations are very attached to their food traditions and to their consumption patterns."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Cidrerie Ruwet"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples