Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.11.3-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, to start with, I should like to thank my fellow MEPs here in Parliament, particularly the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups, for their sound and constructive cooperation on the POP proposal, and I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the Irish Presidency, which is unfortunately not here this evening, for having worked so energetically to get this proposal implemented. Finally, I also wish to thank the Commission which, despite the disagreement concerning the legal basis, has done a very constructive and valuable piece of work in order to get matters in order.
You will notice that there are a total of 121 amendments to the report, but that is not the basis on which we shall be voting tomorrow. We shall vote in three blocks, and I hope that Parliament will adopt the first block straight away, thereby making the second block superfluous, and finally vote in favour of the third block. If we do this, we shall have an agreement with the Council at first reading.
One of the most important things in the report and the agreement is that we have succeeded in amending the legal basis, so that we now refer to protection of the environment and human health instead of protection of the internal market, which were the terms in which the Commission’s original proposal was couched. This is an important victory for Parliament on this issue in particular, but also in more general terms, since there is an ever increasing tendency for the Commission to deal with environmental proposals in terms of the internal market. I hope that the forthcoming Parliament too will stand by the principle that environmental issues must be dealt with as such.
We have managed to get a ban introduced on the production, use and placing on the market of POPs. We have also managed to get some very ambitious objectives of the regulation introduced, so that unintentional emissions too must cease – at least in the longer term. This is a complicated matter. We have, however, made clear references to, for example, the Rio declaration and the precautionary principle, as Parliament wished. We have achieved a ban on lindane with immediate effect, so that it has been moved from a list of restricted substances to a list of banned substances. That is also an important victory.
The exemptions that are otherwise contained in the regulation are quite clearly exceptions that must only be applied in quite extraordinary cases, and a high level of scientific evidence is required before they can be applied. We have had restrictive control provisions introduced for both existing and new chemicals containing POPs. That too is important, I think, especially since progress is now unfortunately slow in the work on REACH.
We have drawn up provisions stating that all stocks containing POPs must be destroyed and treated as waste. We have also had some very restrictive monitoring provisions introduced for POP stocks, so that the limit value at which a duty of notification comes into effect has been halved from 100 kg to 50 kg. We have had a number of international commitments drawn up to the effect that the Member States must cooperate on providing technical and financial support to developing countries, so that the latter too will be in a position to comply with the Stockholm Convention. We have had a number of general provisions introduced, stating that those producing or storing waste must prevent the waste becoming contaminated with POPs.
We have had provisions introduced to the effect that, as vigorously demanded by the Council of Ministers, permanent storage can only be regarded as an exception. We emphasise that it is an exception that can only be applied if it proves that this is the best possible solution for the environment. It is not a permanent exemption. It was our wish that it should not be possible to extend it automatically, and I think that Parliament must send a clear signal to the Council of Ministers and industry, since Parliament listened to the Council’s arguments. We listened to arguments from industry in this area, and now we also think that industry and the Council of Ministers – that is to say, the ministers in the Member States – must show themselves to be responsible. Money must be put into research and development so that methods are continually improved. The aim is, after all, for the exemptions not to be extended when they are reviewed in 2009. Time will, of course, tell, however. It is up to the Council, industry and Parliament to follow up this matter.
We reject the limit values initially put forward by the Council of Ministers. We believed they were too high. Instead, we have now agreed that they will be set in 2005 and we shall ensure that a high level of protection is afforded in this area too. We have emphasised that something must be done to involve the population in the implementation of the POP rules. Information must also be drawn up that is directed particularly at vulnerable groups, and we have a requirement that infringements of the rules must be published.
When preparing an agreement, there are, of course, also things that are not obtained, and these are things about which I do not really have enough time to say anything. Perhaps it is fortunate that I only have time to say something about the successes, but I hope and believe that Parliament will adopt this proposal with a large majority. Thank you, therefore, for your constructive cooperation on this matter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples