Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-357"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.39.2-357"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, although, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets, I generally support the approach taken by the Commission, I should like to emphasise the political dimension of this matter and to point out, if I may, two shortcomings.
For two years now, the European Commission has been seeking to develop standardisation in the context of health, social, societal and environmental services. It proposes to make wider use of standardisation work in the field of services, while preserving the monopolistic nature of the bodies mentioned in the report – which is, in my opinion, regrettable – even though standardisation has been mainly focused up to now on industrial products and nothing else.
Standards, when viewed in the specific context of services, tend to be substituted for the harmonisation of European legislation, which is worrying. However necessary, indeed essential, standardisation may be, it cannot take precedence over legislation. These standards are required in all European invitations to tender but, until now, they have been drawn up exclusively by manufacturers, without any democratic control, and may accordingly constitute an obstacle to market access, which is something that we cannot accept.
That is why it is important to ensure, in particular, that all of the parties involved can actually participate in the work of these bodies. That obviously includes manufacturers, but it also includes consumer associations, clients, local authority representatives or even environmental protection associations. The compromise amendments certainly address this concern, but only to a very small extent.
On the other hand, I felt that, insofar as public funds were involved, the European Parliament had to be informed each year of the standardisation process that had actually been implemented. European standards organisations are actually associations of general interest in receipt of public aid from the Community. As such, they must obviously meet obligations with regard to transparency. The compromise amendment regarding this issue makes provision for a Commission assessment of standardisation activities to be carried out at least once every five years, which is clearly not often enough.
So there you have my observations summed up in a few words, Madam President. I should like wholeheartedly to congratulate the rapporteur and the coordinators on the quality of the work done, but I deplore the insufficient efforts made to encourage greater plurality and regret that the assessments of standardisation activities should be so infrequent."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples