Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-315"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.11.3-315"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, firstly, I should have started by thanking Mr Lisi for his work as rapporteur on this important proposal. I do it now instead and hope he will forgive me for not doing so earlier.
No less than 36 amendments – 36 to 53, 55 to 57, 59 to 63, 65, and 67 to 77 – aim to change the limit values proposed by the Commission. The Commission is aware that intense lobbying activities have been going on, both from industry and from environmental organisations, with a view to either softening or tightening the limit values proposed by the Commission. However, so far the Commission has not been presented with convincing evidence that the values of the proposal are not well balanced, economically justified and technically achievable within the deadlines proposed. Therefore the Commission, at this time, finds that it should stand by the limit values, procedures and deadlines proposed.
Allow me to return to the question of the purpose and the scope of the proposal. A number of the amendments adopted by Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy are motivated by concern for the protection of the health of workers. Some of these amendments – 10, 16 and 26 – aim to emphasise that the present proposal will not restrict or prejudice national or Community measures established in order to protect the health of workers from exposure to solvents in paints and varnishes.
The Commission agrees with the principle underlying these amendments. Measures for the protection of the health of workers fall outside the purpose and scope of this proposal, and the proposal therefore does not prejudice such measures in any way. The Commission also agrees that it may be useful to clarify and emphasise this point directly in one of the paragraphs of the proposal. However, and for exactly the same reason, the Commission cannot agree to include a number of amendments which directly or indirectly aim to enhance the protection of workers' and consumers' health from exposure to solvents in the paints and other products covered by the proposals – Amendments Nos 17, 20 and 23. The Commission finds that these amendments, rather than reducing the risk for human health, might inadvertently serve to create confusion about the scope of the proposal.
A number of the amendments voted by the committee – Amendments Nos 11, 13, 14, 32, 33 and 34 – contain useful technical clarifications with which the Commission can agree to a greater or lesser degree. As an example let me just mention the proposal that the part of the VOCs in the paint which reacts to form the coating film remaining on the painted surface should not be included when assessing compliance with the VOC content limit value. That is Amendment No 11. This makes sense from an environmental point of view, as it is the part of the VOCs that evaporates into the atmosphere we want to reduce. However, there is a practical sticking point: for the time being we do not have any recognised standard or method for calculating the weight of those VOCs which remain bound in the film. Such a standard has to be developed in order to allow for this deduction.
The Commission also finds it reasonable to accept that Member States, under strict conditions and in limited quantities, may grant derogations for special paints, as you mentioned, for the restoration and maintenance of vintage cars and historic buildings. That concerns Amendments Nos 6, 19 and 22.
In total, the Commission can, to a greater or lesser degree, accept 20 of the 83 amendments tabled for the vote in plenary tomorrow. Of the remaining 63 amendments, which the Commission cannot accept for different reasons, most are of a fairly technical nature.
Allow me to make only a few comments on these amendments and our reasons for rejecting them. Four amendments – 5, 27, 81 and 83 – aim to oblige the Commission to present tighter limit values and/or enlarge the scope of the present values at some later date. Quite apart from the question of principle concerning the Commission's right of initiative, we firmly believe that it would be unwise to guess at what we should do in four or five years in order to improve air quality. When we have the results of the Clean Air For Europe programme in a couple of years, we will be in a much better position to assess if, where and what action might be needed in order to improve air quality in a scientifically and economically justified manner.
Amendment No 12 proposes enlarging the scope of the directive by including VOCs with a boiling point – as several Members have mentioned – up to 280°C rather than the 250°C proposed by the Commission. This is not acceptable to the Commission. Firstly, because organic compounds with a boiling point above 250°C have a very low volatility: it takes several days for them to dry out and they have a very limited ozone formation potential. In other words, they are of little environmental concern. Secondly, because 250°C is the boiling point chosen to define VOCs in the EU eco-labelling scheme. It would be both inconsistent and bizarre to choose a stricter definition for this proposal.
Mr Davies, B[amp]Q/Kingfisher will be able to continue to use their labelling scheme."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples