Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-23-Speech-3-327"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021023.9.3-327"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I do not often get 10 minutes of speaking time but I hope I will not need it all. We have before us two reports regarding the import and export of chemical products.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has adopted 15 amendments. The legal basis for the regulation has been amended from the internal market to the environment. This means codecision for the European Parliament. More freedom has also been created for the individual Member States, meaning that individual Member States can pass more far-reaching measures. This will be evident from the fact that individual Member States may also make proposals with regard to adding new products to the list to which prior informed consent applies, as there is still a group of products for which there is still no harmonised European legislation, such as pesticides.
Another improvement is that the lists of hazardous products will only have to be updated each year at the most. It is very important that persistent organic products are added to this regulation. The arrangements made as part of the Treaty of Stockholm are included in the list of prohibited products.
As it seems that the Council had a similar vision to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, as
rapporteur I have tried to complete the legislative process at first reading. For this purpose I was given the mandate by the parliamentary groups. The talks on this area were most satisfactory. The Council adopted most of the amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, and the Council’s mostly technical adjustments were easy to incorporate. This led to 42 new amendments, which were signed by most of the groups. The Council sent a letter which promised that if the European Parliament accepted the total package of compromises, the Council would lay down the common position accordingly. This means that we could complete matters by the end of the first reading, saving a considerable amount of time – at least a year. I am really pleased to hear from Mrs Wallström that the European Commission is also able to endorse the measures wholeheartedly.
I would like to request that special attention be paid to Amendment No 22. With regard to the scope, it has been agreed with the Council that the rules will in any case apply to amounts exceeding 10 kg. This will be very sensible in practice for feasibility and control purposes. This is also part of the whole package of measures.
Mr President, the package of compromises before you is a very satisfactory result that I can heartily recommend to Parliament. The voting slip comprises 4 blocks. Block 1 covers the compromise amendments with the Council. If block 1 is adopted, block 2 will no longer apply. Block 3 comprises the amendments of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy which were approved by the Council, so we must vote in favour of these. Finally block 4 comprises 3 amendments which must be rejected by Parliament, based on the total compromise.
Finally, I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Danish Presidency for their proper, constructive cooperation.
The first report supports the approval of the Treaty of Rotterdam in respect of specific hazardous chemical products and pesticides in international trade. I propose that we do this as quickly as possible, given that the Treaty can enter into force from the moment that it has been ratified by sufficient parties.
The report concentrates mainly on the following three points:
First of all, parties to the Treaty can only export chemicals included in the Appendix to another party to the Treaty if they have obtained prior approval from the importing country. This is called the PIC procedure
Secondly, new products may be added to the Appendix to which the PIC procedure applies.
Thirdly, a party exporting prohibited or strictly regulated chemical products must provide information to the importing party. Moreover, all products listed in the Appendix to which the PIC procedure applies, must be labelled.
These matters have already been more or less laid down in a regulation dating back to 1992. The chemical industry also began to implement the Treaty of Rotterdam voluntarily in April of this year. There is therefore no longer any reason to delay the ratification of this Treaty any longer.
The second report aims to implement the Treaty of Rotterdam through a regulation. This regulation goes further than the Treaty of Rotterdam on a number of points. It is somewhat stricter, more precise and broader, and this can be seen as an improvement to the legislation. More has also been done in respect of providing information to third countries, especially developing countries.
A more difficult issue is that in the original proposal by the Commission, the Commission itself wanted to impose a monopoly on the procedures. This is not sensible, as Member States do not all have the same legislation with regard to chemical products. I am referring particularly to pesticides and biocides. As you know, it will take another five to ten years before we have Community legislation on this area. It is also possible that, even after this period, Member States will make use of exceptional provisions. It is therefore a good idea to leave some leeway for the Member States in this regulation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Prior Informed Consent."1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples