Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-24-Speech-3-944"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101124.15.3-944"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This recast relating to the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS) is necessary, according to the Commission, because of uncertainty with regard to scope, a lack of clarity with regard to legal provisions, and disparities among Member States with regard to the conformity of the products in question.
Prior to the vote, I received several calls to reject the inclusion of PVC on the list of substances identified for priority review within Annex III of the RoHS Directive. I would like to state that I disagree with this inclusion, as the listing of a series of suspect products, including PVC, not based on any criteria, does not make sense. Considering a product to be susceptible
of being banned in the future without any scientific basis gives rise to an unacceptable situation of a lack of legislative definition. In the case of PVC, an initial assessment carried out under the terms of the REACH Regulation concluded that it is not very hazardous, and is not a priority substance for inclusion in Annex III. I voted in favour of this report because, during the negotiations that preceded the plenary vote, this list was withdrawn. The Commission should now carry out a reassessment, three years after this legislation came into force."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples