Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-07-04-Speech-1-118"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050704.18.1-118"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the directive under debate concerns restrictions on the use of phthalates in toys and childcare articles in order to protect children, who are one of the most vulnerable groups of the population; that is because phthalates, which are generally used in large quantities in order to impart flexibility to toys and childcare articles made of plasticised material, present scientifically substantiated risks.
To cut a long story short, following the resolution by the European Parliament, there was clearly still room for unofficial talks with the Council in the presence of the Commission. We finally reached an agreement. The package of agreements contains the following:
Firstly, a ban on the use of the three phthalates in all articles which children may place in their mouths; secondly, a review of all the applications which contain the substances in question for medical appliances; thirdly, the inclusion of child hygiene articles in the definition of childcare articles; fourthly, the adoption by the European Commission of guidelines on what is meant by toys and childcare articles which may be placed in children's mouths and, finally, the Commission study on the risks of plastic articles containing fragrances.
I am very satisfied with the result, because the Council was finally persuaded by Parliament's arguments that it is not possible, given that there is cause for concern about a substance, for that substance to be allowed for children over three years of age and only to be banned for children under three years of age.
I would like to recommend without reservation that Parliament vote for these agreed amendments at which, I repeat, we arrived with the Council and with the European Commission. I am sure that we shall thus avoid tiresome official conciliation and that this directive will be published and will become part of Community legislation straight after the vote at second reading and I hope that it will be passed tomorrow.
I would ask that we do not move away from this package of agreements which we have achieved and, consequently, that we vote in favour of what is being proposed by the five groups, by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left.
That is why six years ago the European Commission proposed the directive we are debating, proposing a ban on the placing on the market of articles which are intended to be placed in the mouth of children under the age of three and, at the same time, supplementary provisions for labelling all other articles. It even proposed a temporary ban pending final adoption of the directive.
The European Parliament called at first reading for a ban on all phthalates in toys and products and childcare articles for children under three years of age and the labelling of those intended for children over three years of age but which might be put in the mouths of children under three years of age.
It has taken five full years after the first reading by Parliament for the Member States to reach a common position in the Council. After five years, therefore, of discussions – not to say inertia – the Council issued a common position; however, it made significant changes both to the Commission's proposal for a directive and the European Parliament's first reading.
Firstly, the six phthalates are no longer treated as substances in the same category or as posing the same danger to children's health on the basis of scientific reports by the competent scientific committee. The Council divides them into two categories:
for the first category of three phthalates, namely, DEHP, DBP and BBP, a total ban is proposed on all toys and childcare articles, because the risk assessment showed that these substances are carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic. Here the Council position is perfectly clear.
For the second category of the other three phthalates, namely DINP, DIDP and DNOP, the Council proposed a partial ban; to be specific, they are banned for children under three years of age and, for articles which may come into contact with the mouth, it allows them both to be used and, of course, to be placed on the market for children over three years of age.
There would be no problem if we did not have the relevant expert opinion by the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment and there was no uncertainty as to the safety of these substances. I can tell you that there are experimental data on rats and mice which show that these three substances cause neoplasm in the liver and kidneys. In all events, there is no full assessment of the repercussions on man and, consequently, the relevant risk assessment has not been concluded. However, account must be taken of the principle of precaution, which the Council does by banning these compounds for all toys and childcare articles for children under three years of age, but allowing them for children over three years of age, but without any safety valve, such as labelling for parents' information.
In the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, we ended up by calling for a ban on the three phthalates intended to come into contact with the mouth or in toys and childcare articles which may come into contact with the mouth and we called on the European Commission to draft guidelines for the implementation of the directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples