Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-186"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-11-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20101122.18.1-186"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-11-22-Speech-1-1872
lpv:speaker	lp:Julie Girling2
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, I would like to add my thanks to the rapporteur and her staff. After very long negotiations, we have an agreement that my group can sign up to. However, I do want to take this opportunity to mention a couple of areas. This recast was intended to improve matters. By definition, I think that is what a recast should do. It was intended to simplify the requirements and demands on manufacturers. Looking at the result, it seems to me to be in many ways one step forward and two back. I welcome the removal of Annex III, which effectively created a blacklist for many substances, but I regret the inability to agree on the availability as a criterion. That took a great deal of discussion. Secondly, it was intended to create legal certainty. I have to mention the opening of the scope here. Right from the beginning, I argued that it would create uncertainty and simply cause new demands for exemptions and exceptions. It seemed to me that, at the very least, we required a full impact assessment from the Commission before agreeing to this. I have not changed my mind, but I accept that I have lost the argument. The checks and balances now being written into the regulations are, I believe, going to lead to a number of challenges, and I welcome the Commission’s commitment to look at this after it is included. But it would, in my view, have been better to have done this before. I wonder how this opening of the scope has actually advanced legal certainty and clarity. Finally, I would also like to mention the real danger of over-regulation. In voting for the RoHS recast, we are, in effect, continuing a dual tracking of regulation and EU approval for chemical – hazardous – substances. We have the REACH regulations in place, and their implementation is, as we heard at committee recently, evolving satisfactorily. At some point soon, we will have to grasp the nettle and let the REACH regime lead, as it was intended to. I look forward to the Commission taking this point on board."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; ENVI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; EMPL (2010-02-09--2012-01-18)3,3 member; PECH (2009-07-14--2012-02-15)3,3 substitute; PECH (2009-07-21--2012-01-18)3,3 unknown; Conservative Party (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2012-03-18)3,3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Julie Girling,"1 "on behalf of the ECR Group."1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph