Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-09-Speech-1-180"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070709.20.1-180"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to congratulate Mrs Sornosa MartÃnez on her excellent report.
This legislative report follows the mercury strategy report adopted by this House last year. It aims at restricting the placing on the market of new measuring devices containing mercury. Mrs Sornosa MartÃnez rightly agrees in the main with the proposal before us and reserves only some derogations in cases where there are no appropriate substitutes yet available.
My group strongly supports this proposal and considers the rapporteur's amendments useful and appropriate. Overall, the proposal meets with widespread agreement across Parliament, apart from the single, well-known issue of the barometer controversy. The difference, as you know, is that the Council has agreed to the compromise proposal to grant a two-year derogation after the entry into force of the directive to a small number of producers of traditional-looking, present-day manufactured barometers. This, we feel, is a reasonable solution and gives those manufacturers time to implement mercury-free substitutes into their products.
This view is not shared by some colleagues who hold the opinion expressed in Amendments 1 and 2 that there should be a permanent derogation for traditional-looking barometers. The matter is not of huge importance in substance, as the amount of mercury used in these instruments is tiny and safety measures are adequately implemented by the manufacturers. At the same time, as a question of principle, no long-term derogation is necessary as the manufacturers have ample time to adapt in the case of safe alternative chemicals without the need to introduce a risky precedent in safety directives.
The issue has, unfortunately, been blown out of all proportion by a section of the national press that want to portray the matter as one of heartless and bureaucratic big-brother-style EU interfering with poor, honest-to-goodness traditional instrument manufacturers and trying to destroy them. This, as you will appreciate, is not true.
The position of my group is to follow scientific logic and not to accept permanent derogations for barometers but, realising the strength of feeling amongst some MEPs, we will not be unduly strict with those in our group who choose not to follow the group line, although there is always the risk of the barometer amendment going through and jeopardising the whole proposal. Let us hope that this will not happen."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples