Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-14-Speech-1-180"
|Predicate||Value (sorted: default)|
|dcterms:Is Part Of|
|lpv:document identification number||
"Madam President, I would like to thank all the speakers for their positive comments. I fully acknowledge and share Parliament’s desire to achieve a high level of protection for human health and the environment, particularly in those countries that do not have the requisite infrastructure or capacity to correctly handle hazardous chemicals. I also fully agree with the view that the European Community should play a leading role in establishing a legal framework for the Community so as to ensure a high level of protection. On many points, the regulation does not restrict itself to the provisions of the Rotterdam Convention, but lays down implementing conditions that offer a high level of protection for all the countries of the world, not just for members of the Convention. I am convinced that this example will encourage other countries to follow suit and to join the Convention. The Commission will make every possible effort to support the Rotterdam Convention to enable these goals to be achieved. In response to the concerns voiced on arsenic and mercury, the Commission would like to stress that, pursuant to Article 22(3) of Regulation 304/2003, if metallic arsenic is banned or subjected to a rigorous restriction within the Community, then a proposal will be submitted for the application of the relevant annex. Furthermore, the Commission stresses that work is in progress in the Council and in Parliament concerning the proposal to ban exports of mercury to countries outside the Community, a ban which, as long as it is in force, goes beyond the requirement for consent imposed by the Rotterdam Convention and the Community regulation, which implements it. Once again I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their efforts and their excellent work, in particular Mr Blokland. The Commission is particularly satisfied with the result of negotiations and considers all the proposed compromise amendments to be acceptable. As for the dual legal basis, it would, in fact, have been much easier and simpler had we had a single legal basis, but we well know the problem that arises so often: here we have, if I remember rightly, Article 133 with Article 175, while in most other cases we have Article 95 with Article 175. Certainly, in proposing a legal basis, we always rely on the opinion of our Legal Service. Here, as I have already said, we have dealt with trade and the environment, and this was the reason for the European Court of Justice’s decision on the dual legal basis."@en1
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples