Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-267"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.12.2-267"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 27 October 2000, the Council of Ministers adopted its common position on this draft directive on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances, specifically pentabromodiphenyl ether, a flame retardant used – I would reiterate – almost exclusively in the manufacture of flexible polyurethane foam. PentaBDE builds up and remains in the environment, it escapes from the foam and enters our blood stream and nervous system via the atmosphere.
To sum up, I have some brief comments to put to the Commissioner. The Commission is developing programmes, greatly increasing the number of initiatives in order to ensure even greater levels of protection for human health and the environment. The new strategy on chemical products launched by your services is the best example of this. It would be a strong, reassuring signal if you made a commitment to implementing a risk reduction policy for all polybromodiphenyl ethers without delay.
I have, of course, noted the progress that the Commission has made in this area with its declaration attached to the minutes of the common position, where it undertakes to consider as a matter of urgency the need for a new proposal to restrict the marketing and use of octaBDE and decaBDE, but the conditions applied – namely, that it is still necessary to wait for the results of the risk assessments – mean, in this case, that the timetable for introducing urgent measures is at risk of being further overloaded. Where scientific doubt persists, it is necessary to make a political choice. That is why I think that we do not need to wait for a never-ending story to unfold to analyse the risks but to unite and promote a balanced solution. The most important thing is to reconcile the immediate safety of our citizens from fire risks with the longer-term benefits for public health and the environment.
I therefore welcome the fact that the common position – as, in fact, was suggested by Parliament at the vote at first reading – is placing a ban on pentaBDE in all its forms, including when it is the residue from the manufacture of a related chemical product, namely octabromodiphenyl ether. This ban is due to come into force in July 2003.
As far as the rest of the text is concerned, however, I would say that we still have a great deal of work to do. The Council, which is supporting the opinion of the Commission on this issue, has rejected Parliament’s proposal to extend the scope of the directive to cover all the polybromodiphenyl ethers on the market, namely octaBDE and decaBDE. We must make it clear there are two arguments for justifying this refusal, which a majority of the Member States opposes. The first is that we must wait for the final results of the risk assessments in progress; the second is that we must ensure, before any ban is placed on a flame retardant, that equally effective substitute products are available.
I would like to reiterate that this is precisely the reasoning that Parliament followed at first reading, and also that used by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy during its vote on 21 March, with regard to decabromodiphenyl ether in both cases. In other words, by calling for a deferred ban on this substance to come into force no later than 1 January 2006, depending on the final results of the risk assessment, Parliament is taking into account the latest available scientific information forwarded by the United Kingdom, which is the Member State acting as rapporteur on the environmental aspects of the risk assessment. The British experts concluded with a proposal to the authorities responsible to consider the need to apply the precautionary principle to both octaBDE and to decaBDE.
The European Parliament is also responding to the Council and Commission’s desire to respect the rules laid down by the 1993 regulation on the assessment and control of existing substances, on the existence of substitutes and on the difficult balance that needed to be found between the obvious advantages in terms of safety in the event of fire, on the one hand, and the harmful effects of these products on the environment and health, on the other.
In this respect, I would point out that decaBDE, which constitutes 80% of bromine fire protection products, is a particularly resistant and effective flame retardant. In the United Kingdom in 2000 alone, 155 lives were saved and thousands of cases of severe burns were avoided thanks to these substances.
That is why the Committee on the Environment wanted to phase in the precautionary principle rather than apply it rigidly, as I said. This is the purpose of Amendment No 4, which was unanimously adopted, and it is also why I am opposed, as I was at first reading and during the vote in committee, to Amendments Nos 9 and 10 tabled by Mrs Schörling and Mr Sjöstedt. I am, however, in favour of Amendment No 7, tabled by these Members, which is much clearer in its wording in that it explicitly refers to decaBDE in the recitals.
As regards octaBDE and its imminent ban, which I believe is justified, there is no further information to reassure us on this substance and Parliament is therefore unable to change its position adopted on 6 September 2001. The results of the risk assessments currently in progress forwarded by the French Government remain applicable; they are preliminary results revealing that octaBDE is harmful to human health and the environment.
There is a further reason for our request to limit the marketing of this flame retardant which justifies the reintroduction of Amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3, and that is that octaBDE is used in a fairly small number of products and can be replaced in many cases by decabromodyphenl ether, and this is why my fellow Members and myself call for the precautionary principle to prevail over all other considerations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples