Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-21-Speech-2-529"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100921.19.2-529"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I should like to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, the rapporteur, Mrs Klaß, the shadow rapporteurs and the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for their considerable work.
Third issue: national derogations within the framework of mutual recognition. Although we recognise that national derogations within the framework of mutual recognition may be justified in certain circumstances, we feel that the Commission should examine such derogations on a case-by-case basis. If such derogations are authorised without making provision for supervision by the Commission, there is a risk of compromising the internal market in biocidal products, which the regulation is designed to promote.
Fourth issue: definition of low risk products. As far as the definition of low risk products is concerned, we need to make an effort to establish a pragmatic definition as the
of an effective policy on such products. Efforts would still appear to be needed before a clear definition of the criteria applicable to low risk products can be reached.
Fifth issue: treated articles. As regards treated articles, we support the amendments pitching controls at the level of active substances. As regards the labelling of such articles, we endorse the general approach of imposing different rules, depending on whether the articles have an internal or external effect, for example, depending on whether or not the product was intentionally discarded or came into contact with human beings or the environment.
Sixth issue: free riders. Although we support the compromise amendment on free riders, we have serious concerns about a number of other amendments linked to the concept of inclusion by company.
Seventh issue: nanomaterials. On the issue of nanomaterials, the Commission has abided by its policy of taking a decision on the basis of scientific factors and its wish to improve knowledge of these materials and approves the need to define nanomaterials and, if necessary, the principle of their separate evaluation.
Finally: animal tests. Although the Commission supports the objective of reducing animal tests, it considers that this should not be at the expense of a high level of protection for the environment and human health.
I shall now follow your debate on the proposal and proposed amendments closely and may include further clarification of these issues and other points in my final comments.
The 330 amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment and the global compromise adopted last week bear witness to their commitment to, and interest in, this dossier. These amendments support the general thrust of the Commission proposal.
Allow me to dwell on what we consider to be the main outstanding issues.
First issue: extending the EU authorisation system and related procedures. In order to reach agreement on this dossier, it is paramount that we reach a compromise on the study of the EU authorisation system and related procedures, especially the role of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
Although the Commission can, in principle, support extending the EU authorisation system to a larger group of biocidal products, it can only do so on two conditions.
Firstly, the ECHA and the Commission must have sufficient resources to be able to take on the additional workload. Without sufficient resources, delays will ensue which will compromise the advantages of the EU authorisation system.
Secondly, we need to design a mechanism suitable for gradually extending the scope of the system, for example, by staggering the introduction of types of products or by applying horizontal criteria, such as similar conditions of use.
As far as procedures relating to EU authorisation are concerned, the role of the ECHA will be essential in terms of the operation of the system. We need to ensure that ECHA resources are used for work which brings added value in terms of harmonisation or which cannot be carried out more efficiently by the Member States. I would also add that procedures need to be designed to cope with the extended scope of the EU authorisation system.
Second issue: derogations from exclusion criteria. On the thorny issue of derogations from exclusion criteria, I note that the compromise amendment allows a reasonable balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the objective of guaranteeing a high level of protection for the environment and human health and, on the other, the need to make provision for a certain degree of flexibility in cases in which there is no substitution solution."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples