Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.10.2-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr Liikanen, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, first of all, to thank my 12 colleagues in the European Parliament delegation to the Conciliation Committee. I can see Mr Bowe, Mrs Schörling, Mr Lund, and Mrs Van Brempt, all of whom have firmly and vigorously defended consumers’ right to safe, effective flame retardants. This joint text could not have been prepared without the efficient work of the Danish Presidency – who will receive the message – and the Commission either, of course.
We have come so far since 16 January 2001, when the Commission submitted this proposal for a directive which, I would remind you, was aimed at prohibiting the marketing and use of pentabromodiphenyl ether alone, a brominated flame retardant used, in particular, in the manufacture of polyurethane foam, a chemical substance that is harmful to our environment and our health. It is found at high concentrations, in particular in breast milk, with a significant risk of contamination in infants. Logically, therefore, at first reading Parliament pronounced itself in favour of prohibiting pentaBDE in all its forms, thus confirming the red card that the Commission had shown it. There was therefore unanimity with regard to this first substance.
Having said this, Parliament, in its vote of September 2001, also wanted this proposal to cover the two sister substances, octabromodiphenyl ether and decabromodiphenyl ether. Given the strong indications of the hazardous nature of octabromodiphenyl ether, both for the environment and public health, the European Parliament, once again with a very large majority, pronounced itself in favour of immediate prohibition.
Parliament, however, chose to show decabromodiphenyl ether the yellow card, by proposing to defer its prohibition to 1 January 2006 at the latest and make it conditional upon the final results of a risk analysis. This approach strictly applied the precautionary principle and was not, at this point, shared by either the Council in its common position or the Commission in its amended proposal. In this kind of matter, where chemical substances are in the dock, debate is always tricky. We needed to establish a fragile balance between obvious advantages in terms of fire safety and equally proven disadvantages in some cases in terms of health and the environment. It is this balance in risk management, taking account of factors as varied as scientific risk assessment, proportionality and cost-benefit analysis, that was at the heart of the discussions within our Conciliation Committee.
Three trialogues were eventually necessary to bring together the various points of view and reach a compromise that was acceptable to all, mainly where decabromodiphenyl ether was concerned, since, I must emphasise, as regards octabromodiphenyl ether, the pressure exerted by Parliament paid off. This pressure contributed to the swift, eventually negative conclusion of the risk assessment and convinced the Council to support us in prohibiting the use of this substance.
In the case of decabromodiphenyl ether, the insertion in the joint text of a recital inviting the Commission to immediately assess the results of the risk reduction strategy, expected by 30 June next year at the latest, seems to me to be objectively the first compromise we have been able to achieve at this stage because, in this case, contrary to the case of octabromodiphenyl ether, in the absence of a final risk reduction strategy and, in particular, in the absence of risks to human health – the conclusions of the French rapporteur are definite in this regard – this deferment accompanied by strict conditions is justified. It should, however, be pointed out that decabromodiphenyl ether, which is mainly used in insulating products, in construction and textiles, is a particularly effective, fire-resistant flame retardant. In the United Kingdom alone, in the year 2000, 155 lives were saved and 4 537 injuries avoided by the presence of this kind of substance in furniture upholstery.
So much effort has been put into reaching this agreement in the Conciliation Committee. I sometimes had the impression, as rapporteur, that I was acting as a member of the European office for chemical products rather than a representative elected directly by the citizens because of the cumbersome, slow risk assessment process with little transparency. It has taken almost ten years for brominated fire retardants, which are included in the list of priority substances, to be assessed at last.
I sincerely hope that this textbook case will enable the Commission and, in particular, the Member States, to understand the need, when preparing future legislation on chemical products, to establish a new assessment method that is swifter, more effective and more transparent, a REACH system which, as proposed by the resolution adopted by Parliament in November 2001, is based on a genuine risk management strategy at Community level.
In conclusion, and I shall go back to my footballing metaphor, whereas the Commission, in its initial proposal, only gave half a red card to pentabromodiphenyl ether, Parliament and the Council, as fair, impartial referees, give two red cards to pentabromodiphenyl ether and octabromodiphenyl ether and a yellow card to decabromodiphenyl ether, as the essential aim is to reconcile citizens’ immediate safety from fire hazards with the more long-term benefits in the field of public health and the environment. The joint text to be submitted to Parliament tomorrow fulfils this dual objective. For all these reasons, I would ask my fellow Members to support it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples