Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-22-Speech-1-190"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101122.18.1-190"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, let me begin by congratulating the rapporteur. Mrs Evans has a remarkable determination, thanks to which we can today reach a compromise that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (the S&D Group) can endorse. I am saying ‘can endorse’ because a number of significant improvements have been made to this very important legislation. These improvements concern the expansion of open application areas, though we would have preferred them to be introduced more quickly. A further result of the improvements is that we still have a separate, independent directive – independent of REACH – obviously with the necessary coordination between the two. Thirdly, and I personally find this extremely important, thanks to these improvements, we have a good methodology, which Parliament has had difficulty negotiating, which should ensure that substances come under review again, so that we can see what their possible effects may be. On top of that, there are a number of substances (HBCDD) – which I have to look up on my paper here – one of the most commonly used and most controversial brominated flame retardants and three important phthalates – that should be addressed as a matter of priority. Naturally, action is also being taken on nanomaterials. We would have wanted to go much further, but we are happy that the Commission will, nonetheless, issue a statement. That is very important. Would we have wanted to go further? Yes, of course, we are unhappy with some aspects. Obviously, our group would have liked some additional substances to be banned, the review to happen more quickly and there to be fewer exemptions. As far as the latter is concerned, I really must come back to solar panels for a moment. The S&D Group was the only group to oppose to the end the totally mistaken idea that solar panels should be kept outside the scope. A special lobby has emerged around this issue, and completely unjustifiably so, if you ask me, because that will allow cadmium, a substance which has been banned since 2003, to remain in circulation for another ten years at least. I find that particularly unfortunate, especially for a sector that should undoubtedly be taking a lead in this regard. Nevertheless, the S&D Group will be pleased to support this compromise. I only hope that the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group do not have the wrong dossier in front of them, because I have not seen from them much involvement in the trialogues."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples