Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-14-Speech-2-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061114.7.2-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Sornosa Martínez, for her work on this proposal for what is a very important directive, forming part of the Community action to deal with mercury, the Community strategy on which was debated in this House only recently.
This has to do with our common desire to prevent more mercury finding its way into the environment, and, in order that we may have no misconceptions about this, what we are talking about here is not just any old poison, but a particularly dangerous one, for mercury and its compounds are highly toxic to human health and the environment. The object of the directive we are debating today is to prevent new measuring devices containing mercury getting into circulation, and, if we were to succeed in that, we would prevent 30 tonnes of mercury – which adds up to a very considerable health hazard – getting into the environment.
The proposed directive will prohibit outright the placing on the market of clinical thermometers containing mercury, the reason being that alternatives to them have been available for some time. It will also prevent the sale to the general public of all other measuring instruments containing mercury. These proposals were put together on the basis of a risk assessment and an extensive impact assessment devised for the mercury strategy, followed by consultations with the industry and with other interested parties.
The proposed directive will not only ensure the protection of human health and of the environment, but also serve to maintain and strengthen the internal market, as harmonised rules for the marketing of measuring devices containing mercury apply throughout the Community.
Members of your House have now tabled a number of amendments aimed at securing derogations. I agree with you that the marketing of antique measuring instruments should indeed continue to be permitted, ‘antique measuring instruments’ being those that are at least 50 years old, and, being in the main collectors’ items, they are, by reason of their value, handled with very great care, traded only in very limited numbers, and the risk of such items ending up in waste is minimal.
I can also support a time-limited derogation for new barometers containing mercury and manufactured by a few small specialised enterprises. A transitional period of two years will enable these businesses to adapt their production arrangements to the new rules without a disproportionate risk being presented to the environment. While I regard two years as appropriate, I have to make it clear that there is no reason for mercury to be used in the devices produced by these manufacturers, for they are capable of producing the same results without it, and, under certain circumstances indeed, a better one. There is no argument to support the idea that newly-manufactured devices of this kind must contain mercury. It is not the case that new technology needs to be developed first; the alternatives have been in existence for some considerable time. These manufacturers must be expected to comply with the demands of European legislation, and I am going to be very strict about this; two years really should be enough time in which to adapt.
The situation is actually rather different as regards the use of measuring instruments in the health sector. It has been proposed in your House that there should – subject to a review at a later date – be a derogation from these restrictions for devices for measuring blood pressure, and I do in fact believe that there should be one. Sphygmomanometers are, in any case, used only in certain medical applications, and are absolutely indispensable in certain medical situations in which measurements are required to be of the utmost exactitude. We have examined this question in very great depth. Members of the medical professions regard sphygmomanometers of this kind as indispensable, especially in certain life-threatening situations, and so we should wait until safe and equally reliable alternatives to these devices have been developed before extending the provisions to the health sector. It follows that we have not reached the end of this process; on the contrary, more work is needed in this area.
By way of conclusion, I should like to say that the negotiation process was characterised by close cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and so the Commission can therefore agree to all the compromise amendments proposed by your rapporteur, that is to say Amendments 12 to 18. I very much hope that we will be able to get this directive adopted at first reading."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples