Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-05-Speech-3-212"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000705.6.3-212"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, firstly I would like to express my thanks to Members of Parliament for their keen interest in this file, especially to Mr Arvidsson, the rapporteur, for his continuing and constructive efforts to find a solution acceptable to all. The Commission has also made extensive efforts to find a solution to the phthalates' question.
Following discussions about the risks of PVC toys containing phthalates and the opinions of the Scientific Committee on Toxicology, Ecotoxicology and Environment, the Commission took two decisions simultaneously last autumn. One was a decision providing for an emergency temporary ban, renewable every three months. Second, the Commission decided to propose a directive to restrict the marketing and use of phthalates in soft PVC toys. Any interventions here actually concern the first decision, not necessarily this proposal for a directive.
The Commission's proposed directive consists of two elements. The first element is a ban on the use of six phthalates in toys intended to be put in the mouth of small children. The ban is based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee that toys containing certain phthalates pose a risk to children's health when held in the mouth for extensive periods of time. As it cannot be excluded that children can put other toys in their mouths, although not intended for that purpose, the second element of the proposal is a requirement for a warning label on such other toys that could be put into the mouth. The proposal provides not only for the protection of children's health, it also addresses an internal market issue.
At the present time, the internal market is fragmented, as more than half of the Member States are applying national bans going further than the Commission's emergency ban under the General Product Safety Directive. Mrs Jackson asked whether Member States have supplied scientific evidence to the Commission, the reply is: Not to my knowledge.
The proposed directive would harmonise the rules of Member States. I have noted in the discussions today that the Members of Parliament are divided on the Commission's proposal. Some consider it too strict, while others consider that it is not at all protective enough. The proposal is based on the various opinions of the Scientific Committee, and it is a considered application of the precautionary principle and consequently a proportionate measure. It introduces a ban for the products which potentially pose the highest risks, that is for the toys intended to put be in the mouth, and a less stringent measure – labelling – for the products not intended for mouthing but where a risk cannot be excluded.
The Commission is not able to accept those amendments of Parliament which would widen the scope of the proposed ban to cover plasticisers other than the six named phthalates, or to cover other toys than those intended to be put in the mouth. Nor is the Commission able to accept the amendments which would extend the scope to cover toys destined for older children. We think that these various proposals cannot be justified on the basis of the risks either defined in the opinions of the Scientific Committee or by the application of the precautionary principle.
Furthermore, the Commission cannot at this moment accept amendments which would introduce migration limits, but the Commission accepts the amendments which provide for this to be reviewed when testing methods have been approved. The Commission can accept in principle the amendments which would prohibit the use of perfumes in toys for children under three years containing the six phthalates. It can also accept amendments which would bring forward the review of the directive and widen the scope of that review.
To summarise our point of view, the Commission can accept, at least in principle, Amendment Nos 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 18, 24 and the Commission rejects Amendment Nos 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, revised 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25. We wish to carry on the dialogue with Parliament and I am convinced that we can agree on a constructive solution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples