Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-12-15-Speech-1-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081215.16.1-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur and my colleagues. However, as a group we regret that we had to carry out this work under massive time pressure. In particular, we regret the fact that there was no proper first reading in Parliament at which the other committees that have worked on the directive, like the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, would also have had to have been given a chance to speak. As it is, they have been practically excluded from the decision. I consider this to be a democratic deficit which this Parliament must address. We need clearer guidelines with regard to first reading agreement than we currently have.
When I look at the positive things that we have achieved I have to say that overall we have brought about a considerable improvement. We have improved the Commission’s report again and the results that we sought in the first reading are in many cases good. However, for this reason also, a proper procedure could have been carried out.
There are deficits in three areas in particular, and I would like to clarify these. The first deficit is the issue of certification by an independent certifier. We would have been perfectly willing to compromise even further in this area, for example to require undertakings that have been reported several times on RAPEX to undergo special certification. We would have been prepared in this connection to investigate more and consider further, and to compromise, but there was absolutely no discussion with the Commission and Council on this matter. I find this extremely regrettable, as I believe that it would have benefited the safety of toys if we had achieved this third party certification, at least for certain toys.
Another problem – that Mr Schwab has already raised – is that in other areas, in contrast, we are being too cautious. I am not aware of any case in which a child has choked or suffered other injuries as a result of a cardboard picture book. Therefore, I cannot understand why cardboard picture books are being treated as toys and why there are special procedures for these in the CEN. This is incomprehensible. It would have been good if we had decided to exclude cardboard picture books from this directive – something, incidentally, that the whole committee was in favour of doing. This would have been the right decision.
I think that, as a result of time pressure, in the area of CMR substances, which includes carcinogens, in certain places the wording is not clear enough. In this case, too, we will submit an amendment in order once again to make it clear which direction we need to take.
To reiterate: we would have been able to produce a better piece of work if we had had more time and if the other committees could have been involved."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples