Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-07-06-Speech-4-204"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060706.31.4-204"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". Mr President, I should like to start by saying that this Commission and I, as Commissioner for Trade, are fully committed to working very closely with Parliament, in line with the framework agreement governing relations between the two institutions.
I should add that in addition to possible controls carried out before the products are released into the internal market, the regulation provides for Member States to check origin marking on goods that are already on the market. That should enable Member States to draw on other expertise in policing the scheme, for example by working with those who are presently involved in the enforcement of national rules concerning the voluntary use of origin marking.
As you will be aware, Mr President, the Commission proposal is being debated in the Council and I am of course ready to keep you informed as discussions on the proposal move forward.
As this question rightly points out, the legal basis for this measure – Article 133 of the EC Treaty – does not provide specifically for consultation of the European Parliament on this proposal for an ‘origin marking’ scheme. However, in line with our commitment to keep the European Parliament fully informed, on a par with the Council, of the conduct and conclusion of international negotiations, as well as legislative initiatives, the proposal and the accompanying impact assessment were transmitted on 12 January 2006 to the European Parliament via the Committee on International Trade.
I should like to refer to paragraph 2 of the motion for a resolution that you have before you. The language of that paragraph is slightly unfortunate because it could, as it is written at the moment, be read as if the Commission had not sent any document at all on ‘origin marking’ to Parliament. As I said, we sent it as an Article 133 document to the INTA Committee. I believe that it would certainly be fairer to me and to the Commission – and more accurate – if an adjustment were made to the wording.
Our intention has been, and continues to be, to act in line with both the letter and the spirit of the framework agreement. To meet the commitment in that agreement, and in addition to the many formal and informal contacts that I have with you, the Commission tries hard to share a maximum of information with Parliament, just as I did last week in Geneva.
In particular we sent to the INTA Committee copies of all policy documents that are being discussed in the Council’s 133 Committee. If a more formal interinstitutional way to bring this issue to your attention should have been used on that occasion, the opportunity was certainly not missed on purpose.
I very much welcome the interest you have already shown in this proposal through several questions on the subject, which we have answered. So let me now come to our proposal.
We have proposed a mandatory origin marking scheme, to create transparency about the origin of certain imported goods according to a single standard by which origin is determined. This system will allow consumers to take informed decisions; it will reduce the incidence of fraudulent or misleading origin marking. We believe it will help improve the image of European goods and will help our competitiveness. While it is clear that ‘made in’ marking as such does not contain information on the social, labour or environmental conditions in the country of production, origin information helps the consumer to choose between different available alternatives according to their preferences and the background information they already have.
As regards WTO compatibility, the Commission believes its proposal is in line with international rules, notably Article 9 of the GATT. That provides that WTO members may adopt and enforce laws and regulations relating to marks of origin on imports, notably to protect consumers against fraudulent or misleading indications.
Concerning the enforcement of the proposal, the Commission considers that customs authorities are well placed to ensure that the requirements of the proposed scheme are respected, just as they do with many other rules on environmental, health and technical issues. That part of customs work is crucial to ensuring that our businesses can trade on a level playing field and that consumers draw the full benefits of globalisation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples