Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-01-17-Speech-1-048-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110117.12.1-048-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I, too, would like to thank Mrs Stihler and all the shadow rapporteurs. I believe we have achieved a good compromise in this second reading, even if – as is always the case with compromises, of course – not all sides are satisfied.
I would like specifically to pick up on Professor Meyer’s comments, as communicated by Mr Schwab. I believe that we still have work to do with regard to labelling. We now have good harmonisation of construction products, by which I mean the manufacture of construction products. However, the area where we still have work to do is that of the installation and use of construction products. One option is for the Commission to continue its work in this regard in the area of the Eurocodes and for there then also to be a mandate for this in the area of the Eurocodes in order for progress to be made.
The other option is for us to harmonise the field of application and use so that we do not fall back to the national level in this regard and only have European harmonisation in relation to the products themselves and not in relation to their use. We need to do more work in this regard, and the Commission will also receive our full support if further measures are necessary.
I would like to mention one further point that was important in the debate regarding whether or not we should vote in favour. Unfortunately, the Belgian Presidency made an error during the negotiations. Following the first reading, it introduced new areas in the second reading – Articles 8(3) and 8(6) – without Parliament’s full consent. The Hungarian Presidency has now addressed this in a letter. However, I do not believe that the Hungarian Presidency has truly understood the conflict. I would like to point out once again that, in future, if it introduces new items in the second reading, I expect the Council to actually approach Parliament and try to reach a good compromise with us.
Nevertheless, in view of the result, we do not believe that it would make sense to reject this compromise on account of a procedural error of this kind. We will vote in favour of this compromise because we believe that it is an important step towards further harmonisation of the sector, a sector of major economic importance. The compromise therefore receives our support at this second reading."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples