Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-13-Speech-2-596-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111213.35.2-596-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Baltic Sea is grateful for this decision – it is Europe’s most sensitive sea. It is precisely the lack of phosphorus that stems algal growth and the addition of phosphorus to the Baltic Sea is particularly damaging – more so than in other seas. I would like to thank Mr Newton Dunn and the other shadow rapporteurs. Without you, we would never have succeeded in convincing the Council that we needed to take a decision to ban dishwasher detergents, too.
As many people are saying, the biggest problem is manure and non-mains waste water outlets, in other words, waste water outlets that are not connected to an operational treatment plant. However, this is a significant contribution, and we have also agreed that the Commission shall carry out a review of the use of phosphates as a whole. This is excellent. I would actually have liked us perhaps to have introduced this a little earlier, but the most important thing is that it will happen and it will be applied by the whole of the industry. I am certain that it will switch over much earlier than the date we have set here. In my country, we have already banned both dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents.
I would like to say at this point that this shows that we should have a little flexibility in the internal market. The fact that one country can go ahead and take measures has been very important in this very debate. It is thanks to this that we have been able to demonstrate that it is not expensive to phase out phosphates. On the contrary, it is extremely beneficial, and when people have seen that it works in practice, it is much easier for the whole of Europe to follow suit. I therefore think it is good that countries that want to introduce bans earlier than the date laid down in the legislation have the opportunity to do so.
Then there is the problem of the review of the alternatives. In this regard, we refer to REACH for its implementation. However, I would like to ask the Commission: as REACH has not been used once to prohibit a chemical, will you therefore use it here? If we have identified an alternative that is and should be prohibited, will you use REACH in earnest in order to prohibit it?
Up to now, REACH has only been used to adjust earlier bans, not to introduce new ones. That is something I would like to have an answer to and I await with interest the assessment of phosphate use. I also await with interest the initiative to prohibit industrial applications, too."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples