Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-10-Speech-4-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030410.1.4-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I have listened with great interest to the debate and taken note of the different concerns expressed. Perhaps I could group the questions around six groups of amendments on which I can comment one by one.
We hope to have a definitive opinion from the Scientific Committee on Toxicology, Eco-Toxicology and Environment on phosphates in detergents before the end of this year.
Finally, I would like to say that the Commission can accept in whole or in part amendments 2, 4, 8, 17 to 19, 22 (partly), 27 (partly), 34 to 37 – but only a part of amendment 37 – and 53. The Commission can accept in principle amendments 3, 21, 31, 45, 46 and 52. The other amendments are not acceptable to the Commission.
Firstly, a number of the amendments seek to improve the wording of the Commission's text and can be accepted. I will enumerate them later.
Secondly, a number of amendments have a link to other legislation. As regards animal testing, the aims of the Commission and the Parliament are the same. It is on how such aims are to be reflected in the legislation that we differ. The Commission cannot accept amendments that introduce policy statements that go beyond the scope of this proposal. Many substances and preparations are already adequately regulated by the horizontal chemicals legislation. It is unnecessary and undesirable to refer to them again in the detergents legislation.
Thirdly, there seems to be a desire to bring forward measures on phosphates, anaerobic biodegradability and organic ingredients other than surfactants. The Commission is of the opinion that these are matters where the urgency for action is not so great as to preclude the establishment of a firm scientific base for legislation. The extension of biodegradability testing to all substances and preparations at this stage would be a disproportionate and unjustifiable measure. I will come back to phosphates later.
Fourthly, on labelling – detergents legislation is supplementary to the horizontal chemicals legislation and must therefore be compatible with it. Cosmetics and detergents need to be, and are, separately legislated for. The comparison between a washing-up liquid, which is a detergent, and a chemically similar shampoo, a cosmetic, is a tempting one to make, but it is an exceptional case. No surfactant in an industrial detergent would ever be used in a cosmetic and no cosmetic surfactant would be of any use in a laundry detergent, let alone in an industrial detergent.
The purpose of the ingredients data sheet is to provide information to those who need it, e.g. doctors who treat patients suffering from allergies. Manufacturers have a legitimate interest in ensuring that confidentiality is maintained. Member States also have the right to request ingredient information from manufacturers for use by their poison centres.
Fifthly, on derogations. The introduction of a lifetime limit for manufacturers for submitting the additional data requested by the Member States is a good idea. According to our legal experts the criteria for refusing derogations must be explicitly stated in the text, otherwise a decision to refuse a derogation may not be enforceable in court. A minimum data set is necessary to evaluate the request for derogation; this is what we have specified in annex IV; if, in addition, further data is required by a Member State for an evaluation, it can request as much or as little as is needed. In this way we provide for a tiered approach.
Finally on phosphates. The Commission has promised in Recital 31 to take action on phosphates if there is a solid scientific basis for doing so. The Commission's priority in this matter is to establish a sound scientific basis for action at Community level. There is no urgent need at EU level on this matter.
Those Member States that feel particularly vulnerable to the environmental effects of phosphates have already taken national measures. In some cases this was done many years ago and the situation in those countries has stabilised. Any action at EU level needs to demonstrate clearly the added value of the present situation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples