President. The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0017/2004) by Mrs Frahm, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directives 79/117/EEC and 96/59/EC.

  Monti, Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank the European Parliament and in particular the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, for the intensive work that has been done on the report on the Commission proposal for a regulation on persistent organic pollutants. I am grateful for the support given by the Parliament and the rapporteur to the rapid handling of this legislative proposal. I am also very pleased about the effective cooperation between the Parliament and the Council, which makes a first reading agreement possible.

A prompt adoption of this regulation should enable the Community to ratify the Stockholm Convention at the time of its entry into force in May 2004. Furthermore, the regulation will allow those Member States which have not yet ratified the Convention to do so promptly. Most importantly, the regulation will ensure that the European Union as a whole can meet its international obligations relating to persistent organic pollutants. These substances persist in the environment for decades, accumulate in living organisms and travel over borders far from their sources. Most of these substances are known carcinogens, or are otherwise toxic. It is evident that global action is essential to tackle the risks posed by these substances.

However, I would like to draw the attention of the Parliament to an important issue raised in the draft report, namely the legal basis of the regulation. The Commission is proposing that the regulation be based on Article 175(1) – environment – and Article 95(1) – internal market. In the draft report, it is proposed that the regulation should be based on a single legal basis, namely Article 175(1). While the Commission can otherwise fully support the compromise reached between the rapporteur and the Council, the Commission cannot accept the change of the legal basis. The legal basis as proposed by the Commission is justified by the fact that the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 in the proposed regulation – concerning production, the placing on the market and use of intentionally produced POPs – are relevant to the functioning of the internal market. Furthermore, these particular rules are meant to be transferred to the future REACH regulation on chemicals, which is based on Article 95(1) only.

  Frahm (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (DA) Mr President, to start with, I should like to thank my fellow MEPs here in Parliament, particularly the shadow rapporteurs from the other groups, for their sound and constructive cooperation on the POP proposal, and I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the Irish Presidency, which is unfortunately not here this evening, for having worked so energetically to get this proposal implemented. Finally, I also wish to thank the Commission which, despite the disagreement concerning the legal basis, has done a very constructive and valuable piece of work in order to get matters in order.

You will notice that there are a total of 121 amendments to the report, but that is not the basis on which we shall be voting tomorrow. We shall vote in three blocks, and I hope that Parliament will adopt the first block straight away, thereby making the second block superfluous, and finally vote in favour of the third block. If we do this, we shall have an agreement with the Council at first reading.

One of the most important things in the report and the agreement is that we have succeeded in amending the legal basis, so that we now refer to protection of the environment and human health instead of protection of the internal market, which were the terms in which the Commission’s original proposal was couched. This is an important victory for Parliament on this issue in particular, but also in more general terms, since there is an ever increasing tendency for the Commission to deal with environmental proposals in terms of the internal market. I hope that the forthcoming Parliament too will stand by the principle that environmental issues must be dealt with as such.

We have managed to get a ban introduced on the production, use and placing on the market of POPs. We have also managed to get some very ambitious objectives of the regulation introduced, so that unintentional emissions too must cease – at least in the longer term. This is a complicated matter. We have, however, made clear references to, for example, the Rio declaration and the precautionary principle, as Parliament wished. We have achieved a ban on lindane with immediate effect, so that it has been moved from a list of restricted substances to a list of banned substances. That is also an important victory.

The exemptions that are otherwise contained in the regulation are quite clearly exceptions that must only be applied in quite extraordinary cases, and a high level of scientific evidence is required before they can be applied. We have had restrictive control provisions introduced for both existing and new chemicals containing POPs. That too is important, I think, especially since progress is now unfortunately slow in the work on REACH.

We have drawn up provisions stating that all stocks containing POPs must be destroyed and treated as waste. We have also had some very restrictive monitoring provisions introduced for POP stocks, so that the limit value at which a duty of notification comes into effect has been halved from 100 kg to 50 kg. We have had a number of international commitments drawn up to the effect that the Member States must cooperate on providing technical and financial support to developing countries, so that the latter too will be in a position to comply with the Stockholm Convention. We have had a number of general provisions introduced, stating that those producing or storing waste must prevent the waste becoming contaminated with POPs.

We have had provisions introduced to the effect that, as vigorously demanded by the Council of Ministers, permanent storage can only be regarded as an exception. We emphasise that it is an exception that can only be applied if it proves that this is the best possible solution for the environment. It is not a permanent exemption. It was our wish that it should not be possible to extend it automatically, and I think that Parliament must send a clear signal to the Council of Ministers and industry, since Parliament listened to the Council’s arguments. We listened to arguments from industry in this area, and now we also think that industry and the Council of Ministers – that is to say, the ministers in the Member States – must show themselves to be responsible. Money must be put into research and development so that methods are continually improved. The aim is, after all, for the exemptions not to be extended when they are reviewed in 2009. Time will, of course, tell, however. It is up to the Council, industry and Parliament to follow up this matter.

We reject the limit values initially put forward by the Council of Ministers. We believed they were too high. Instead, we have now agreed that they will be set in 2005 and we shall ensure that a high level of protection is afforded in this area too. We have emphasised that something must be done to involve the population in the implementation of the POP rules. Information must also be drawn up that is directed particularly at vulnerable groups, and we have a requirement that infringements of the rules must be published.

When preparing an agreement, there are, of course, also things that are not obtained, and these are things about which I do not really have enough time to say anything. Perhaps it is fortunate that I only have time to say something about the successes, but I hope and believe that Parliament will adopt this proposal with a large majority. Thank you, therefore, for your constructive cooperation on this matter.

  García-Orcoyen Tormo (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to make an initial reference to the issue of the legal basis of this report and to the debate it has given rise to. I sincerely believe that it would not be the best approach to confront internal market interests and the interests of environmental protection or the health of the citizen's. What is more, it seems to me a serious mistake and I personally believe precisely the opposite.

I believe we must adopt an integrated and complementary approach, I believe that when we talk about the environment, we must also take account of the interests of the internal market and the possible difficulties it may bring with it and I believe that, when we talk about the internal market, we must take account of environmental interests. That is sustainable development, that is integration of the environment, the economy and employment and that is what has been advocated in the proposal for issues to deal with at this year’s forthcoming Spring Council.

I believe that, if we really do not believe in these three pillars of integrated and joint sustainable development, and to the same degree and with the same weight in all our considerations, we would be making political statements with a view to our summits and our communications as Community institutions which are entirely erroneous and false for our citizens. And I frankly do not believe in this. I believe in this integrated approach and I am, therefore, concerned much less about the legal basis of the reports than about the real focus of their content and about how cooperation is undertaken between the various Community committees and institutions.

In this regard, and in relation to this report, I would like to say that during the Italian Presidency very considerable progress was made on this Regulation and also the creation of general guidelines on it was provided for. It was not approved because there was a significant problem in relation to POP waste and in particular the alternative methods for its destruction.

I believe that this issue has been resolved in the new Annex IV(a), which is the outcome of negotiations during the Irish Presidency. In this regard I believe we should congratulate Mrs Frahm because she has done excellent work in terms of reaching a consensus, firstly amongst the parliamentary political groups and secondly also with the Council, so that we can approve this report at first reading. That is why, although I am not completely in agreement with her in terms of emphasising environmental aspects over everything else, and I believe we should achieve the balance which is what we in the European Union and the Member States are really advocating, I do believe that it is a good piece of work, I do believe that she has had difficulties reaching agreements on issues such as waste or the specific exemption of the manufacture of dicofol, a substance accepted under very specific restrictions, in an industrial process which is also very specific and which is carried out in a manner which is confined and absolutely isolated from the environment.

I also agree with the revision clause, which states that the Commission will review the very specific situation of dicofol at the end of 2008 and I believe that what is being done with it is to apply, once again, in a reasonable manner, the precautionary principle, making industrial activity truly compatible with the maximum protection of the environment and safety for the citizens.

With regard to Annex II, which lists substances which can be used subject to restrictions, I believe it has been right to maintain the structure of this Annex – I know that the rapporteur was not in favour of this – but I believe that, although at the moment it does not list any specific substance, it does leave the door open to future substances which may emerge and which both the Commission and Parliament, through its approval, believe should be used, produced or marketed under certain restrictions.

With regard to the issue of lindane, I believe that it is very good that it has moved to Annex I as a prohibited substance and that its use may be permitted under certain also very strict conditions, as proposed in the agreement.

Finally, I believe we should stress what I mentioned earlier: compatibility is important and we must never lose the reference of sustainable development with its three aspects: economy, environment and employment. With that reference I believe that Europe and the Member States can go far.

  Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). (SV) Mr President, when I arrived in Brussels this morning, I found I had received a letter from the World Nature Fund, saying that I should soon receive the results of the blood tests I took a few months ago, designed to ascertain which chemicals we have in our blood. I assume that many of us took this blood test. This test will probably show that, in common with everyone else, I have a majority of quite foreign chemicals in my blood, and some of them will probably also be such persistent organic pollutants as we are debating today.

The fact is that we know relatively little about what this means for our health and fitness, but we know enough to be concerned. We have been presented with a series of alarming reports to the effect that different chemicals produce diseases and that they can, for example, affect our ability to have children. With that as part of the background, this proposal is very welcome, and not only the proposal but, above all, the compromise. The fact is that this compromise that has been negotiated is a significant improvement upon the proposal presented by the Commission. I should, above all, like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm for her work.

I should also like to draw attention to a number of points I see as crucial improvements. The first is the legal basis. I think that the Commission’s tendency to treat environmental issues more and more as issues concerning the internal market is very unfortunate. From an ecological point of view, it is quite irresponsible to proceed in this way. It also reduces the Member States’ opportunities to introduce more progressive legislation. The EU is in that way preventing countries that wish and are able to take the lead from doing so, and that is unacceptable. We hope that, when it presents proposals like this one, concerning the environment, the Commission will be influenced by these considerations and stick to the legal basis for achieving environmental objectives.

I also think that the core of the proposal – the clear ban on production, use and marketing – is very important. It is particularly good that the ban on hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), including lindane, is included in the proposal.

This reminds us that the EU’s chemicals policy does not in practice work. We know that it is a very small portion of the chemicals on the market that really have been tested and whose effects are really known to us. A small part of chemicals policy is covered by this proposal, and we now need efficient, uniform chemicals legislation within the framework of the REACH system for the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals. It is a proposal that is now being attacked quite vigorously, but we need to find out what these chemicals entail, even when, as is the case with many chemicals, they exist in relatively modest quantities. If too many of these chemicals are exempted, we shall be without an effective chemicals policy. I think this work shows that it is only right to take proper decisions when it comes to issues concerning chemicals, and it indicates the way ahead prior to the discussion of REACH.

I wish again to thank the rapporteur.

  Schörling (Verts/ALE). (SV) Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating Mrs Frahm and perhaps by offering a few congratulations to those of ourselves who participated in these negotiations with the Council. We have succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Irish Presidency on this regulation and on the implementation of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

There were perhaps not so many people who believed we would reach an agreement, but Mrs Frahm handled the matter extraordinarily well. Even if everything that has been achieved is not ideal and exactly what we should have wanted, it is still perhaps the best that could have been accomplished, given what is possible politically. I am very pleased.

As others have also said, it is important for the regulation now to be implemented as soon as possible, because persistent organic pollutants are in the rogues’ gallery of dangerous chemical substances. They do not break down, but accumulate in our bodies and in the whole food chain. The levels are now so high that they are a danger both to public health and to the eco-systems and their functioning. The objective must be to put a complete stop to the discharges of persistent organic pollutants by banning their production, use and import. We must therefore go further and, in a number of cases, much further than is indicated both by the Stockholm Convention and by the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. This must also apply to the new Member States that are to join the EU in May of this year. In some cases, requests have been made for exemptions for HCH and lindane, for example, but these cannot under any circumstances be accepted.

I am often very surprised at how difficult it is for the Commission, the Council and perhaps sometimes also Parliament’s more conservative sector to get things through in relation to protecting people’s health and the environment and at the fact that there are repeated delays, postponements and hold-ups. In this area, the precautionary principle must apply fully, meaning too that new substances must be included on the list for banning or controlling these substances.

When it comes to the legal basis, I do not understand the Commission. Nor do I understand why there has to be this kind of debate. The legal basis must be Article 175 of the Treaty establishing the European Community because these decisions are being taken in order to protect people’s health and the environment. The whole of chemicals legislation is, of course, designed to do just that. The fact has also been discussed from Chester onwards that it is because we cannot otherwise protect public health and the environment that we must take sound decisions in terms of a comprehensive and overall view of chemicals legislation.

In conclusion, I think that this agreement with the Council is extremely commendable, as is the fact that we have reached it at first reading, because it is so important that we implement the agreement as soon as possible.

  Blokland (EDD). – (NL) Mr President, I welcome the Commission proposal. POPs are substances that put the public and the environment at risk, and so we should treat them with care. With regard to the legal basis, I share the rapporteur's view that we should opt for Article 175 on its own. This is what we did in the past, in respect of similar treaties such as those of Rotterdam and Basle, and so we should be consistent in this. The recommendation by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market also supports the choice of Article 175.

I am, in fact, curious to see whether the Commission will once again go to the Court of Justice, as happened, to everyone's surprise, with the Treaty of Rotterdam. Can Commissioner Monti shed light on this?

In addition, the standards of concentration in Annex IV should be laid down as soon as possible. An empty annex is of no interest to us. I would therefore ask the Commission to set to work in this matter.

All things considered, I will be backing the compromise package. It successfully addresses my remaining objections to the Commission proposal.

Finally, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, for the work that she has done. It was a difficult issue, and one that she has brought to a successful conclusion, in close cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs.

  Doyle (PPE-DE). – Mr President, persistent organic pollutants – POPs – are chemical substances that persist in the environment, accumulate through the food chain and pose a risk to human health and the environment. As these substances accumulate in fatty tissue in animals – including humans – by definition some of us are more at risk than others!

These pollutants are atmospherically transported across international boundaries, far from their sources, even to regions where they have never been used or produced. The ecosystems and indigenous people of the Arctic are particularly at risk because of the long-range environmental transportation and biomagnification of these substances. They are largely man-made toxic pollutants produced by and used in a variety of industrial sources, for example, as agricultural pesticides, in wood preservation and industrial chemicals.

POPs include pesticides such as aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, myrex and toxaphene; industrial chemicals such as PCBs and hexachlorophine; and unwanted by-products of combustion and industrial processes, such as dioxins and furans. Considerable controls already exist within EU policy and relevant directives such as the WEEE Directive, the RoH Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Seveso Directive and various hazardous waste directives.

The proposed regulation before us aims to tidy up existing legislation on the marketing and use restrictions on eight POP pesticides and to make a slight amendment to the PCB Disposal Directive. These measures will make it easier for states, as parties to the Protocol to the Aarhus Convention, and particularly the Stockholm Convention, to ratify both these international agreements. 48 countries have already ratified the Stockholm Convention, including 8 Member States and 2 accession countries. Ireland has yet to ratify.

The overall compromise package for this first reading agreement with the European Parliament was approved at Coreper on 13 February, and then by all political groups. I understand that no further amendments have been tabled. I congratulate Mrs Frahm on the work she has done together with the Irish presidency and the Italian presidency which preceded it.

The proposed regulation is a temporary measure because in the medium term these substances will be covered by the REACH Proposal. POPs waste, like all hazardous waste in my own country, Ireland, is exported mainly to Germany. Germany has substantial involvement in storing POPs waste in salt mines without any processing. It imports POPs waste commercially for disposal in this way. To facilitate these operations it has sought provision to allow continuation of this practice, which I fully support. The issue of the disposal of POPs-contaminated waste has been at the centre of the difficulties in finding a compromise. There has been much dispute about the methods of disposal: incineration, burial in deep storage in rock or in salt mines and landfill, to name but a few. Under the requirements of the Stockholm Convention there are two principal methods for the treatment of POPs waste, namely destruction or irreversible transformation. Under this regulation there are options for the management of low content POPs waste under the provisions of the Waste Framework Directive.

A third option, which applies to POPs waste generally, has also been agreed upon in negotiations between Parliament and the Council. In cases where destruction or irreversible transformation is not the environmentally preferred option, POPs waste can be stored. This storage can take place in disused salt mines, deep rock formations and hazardous landfill sites. All three forms of storage are carefully defined in existing EU legislation.

  McKenna (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mrs Frahm on her excellent report and also those involved in reaching a compromise. As my colleague Mrs Schörling pointed out, persistent organic pollutants – POPs – are chemical substances that persist in the environment. They accumulate through the food chain and they pose a risk not just to the environment but also to human health, causing adverse human health effects. These pollutants, as has been mentioned, can cross borders: they can end up far from where they originated, and indeed they have been found in areas where they have never been used, so there is a serious threat to the environment here.

The European Community and all the Member States have signed the Protocol to the regional UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on POPs, in 1998, and the global Stockholm Convention on POPs in 2001. While all Member States have signed both of these, many states, including my own, have not yet ratified them. I The Environmental Protection Agency in Ireland is setting in place measures to have them ratified, and I welcome that.

While most of the listed POPs are not produced or used in the Community, there is still the problem that legislation does not prevent them being placed on the market. As Mrs Frahm pointed out, the change of the legal basis is very important in relation to ensuring that this is an issue of public health and the environment: it is not just an internal market issue.

Lindane was a substance used in shampoo to get rid of nits in children's hair. Many parents did not realise that the continual use of something like that, which contained a serious chemical, affected their children, and many people even within this Parliament have actually used these shampoos. There was no warning in relation to what the effects would be, and as has been pointed out, little is known about what the long-term true effects are, despite the fact that these POPs have been found in our bodies.

This report is very welcome; the work done on the issue by Mrs Frahm is something for which we must congratulate her. I am also very glad to hear that the Irish presidency has been very constructive on this issue and in trying to help to get this package through, and that is also to be welcomed.

  Andersen (EDD). – (DA) Mr President, the Commission’s proposal really needs tightening up, and toxic POPs should have been gone from our everyday lives long ago. That will not happen as a result of the Commission’s proposal. It is therefore to be welcomed that, in her report, Mrs Frahm makes an energetic attempt to tighten matters up, and I support all the rapporteur’s proposals.

A much more radical plan is needed, however, if we are to experience a noticeable phasing out of harmful chemicals, including the highly toxic POPs. Such a plan, which removes all the superfluous chemicals from our everyday lives, is not appropriate as a change to this regulation. I therefore wish to submit it in relation to the debate on the Commission’s proposal on chemicals, known as the REACH programme.

As part of the phasing out of toxic chemicals, action should also be taken in response to the polluter pays principle, established by treaty. A duty should be imposed on the chemicals in order to finance the monitoring, assessment and remedying of damage caused by use according to the rules, as well as in order to finance the development of alternatives. The first substance on which it would be appropriate to impose such a tax is PVC. Investment must also be made in real ecological alternatives, which either already exist or are on the way, as a replacement for most chemicals. These include the pesticides dealt with in this directive.

Just as, in Parliament, we have discussed the labelling of genetically modified products, labelling arrangements should also, in the interests of free consumer choice, be introduced for the many toxic chemicals. I am sure that the day we label conventional milk ‘milk with pesticides’, there will be a decisive shift in consumer demand in favour of the organic alternatives.

  Bowe (PSE). – Mr President, first of all, on behalf of the PSE Group I thank the rapporteur for her work and also the presidency for its cooperation. This has been very a useful exercise in achieving a second reading agreement on an important proposal, one which is tackling a persistent, organic and very long-standing problem. We believe that this report is now a very satisfactory one and we are very happy to vote for it.

I am very pleased that a number of the outstanding issues have been resolved. The whole issue of the legal basis has now been resolved, and I am satisfied with that. On the issue of POPs waste, we have come to a pragmatic realisation of the difficulties of completely abolishing waste containing POPs and we think that the appropriate proposal here will meet with the inevitable residual problems that we find with POPs being in waste and in other places.

As regards some of the other issues, such as the problem of stockpiles, and technical and financial assistance, we have all come to reasonable agreements, and the rapporteur can be very proud that she has made a very positive step forward, which I do not think will take long to implement. The great thing about a second reading agreement is the willingness to take it forward into legislation quickly, which we are all waiting for.

Naming and shaming is something which may or may not be necessary in this proposal: it is already contained in the Aarhus Convention. This is something we need to revisit, but a point that the rapporteur was right to raise.

The whole issue of compatibility with the REACH Directive is one that we must all have on our minds at all times. That new proposal on REACH is going to be very important, but it must be comprehensive in its scope. We must find a way in which we can ensure, for example, that whilst POPs are outside the REACH Proposal, chemicals that contain POPs or might produce POPs as a residue are inside the proposal. This would be a very important step forward. It will certainly tighten up any potential loophole that might be created during the time in which we are going to work on that very important proposal here in the autumn.

The PSE Group will be voting for this proposal tomorrow. We thank the rapporteur for her work, we thank the Commission for its proposal and cooperation, and finally the presidency for its willingness to find a second reading agreement.

  Monti, Commission. Mr President, I would like to re-emphasise that the Commission very much supports an early agreement on this regulation, except for the change of the legal basis. The Commission can fully support the compromise package negotiated between Council and Parliament. The adoption of this compromise package will enable the Community and the Member States to ratify the Stockholm Convention in good time and a resolute majority tomorrow will send a very clear signal.

On the issue of the legal basis, the provisions on prohibitions and restrictions of intentionally-produced POP chemicals will affect the functioning of the internal market and therefore these measures should be based on Article 95(1) of the Treaty. The fact that these bans or restrictions are introduced in order to protect human health or the environment does not mean that these provisions cannot be adopted on the basis of Article 95.

Article 95(3) states clearly that the Commission may propose legislation concerning health or environmental protection based on Article 95(1) if these measures have any impact on the functioning of the internal market. Thus it is appropriate that the regulation be based on both 175(1) and 95(1). Furthermore, it should be noted that the Commission also proposes to transfer the production and use bans from the POPs Implementation Regulation to the future REACH Regulation on chemicals, which is based on Article 95. If the legal basis were different, this move would have an effect on the option for Member States to adopt more stringent measures. Therefore, the Commission considered that it was more appropriate to base these provisions on Article 95.

Mr Blokland wondered whether the Commission would appeal to the European Court of Justice: I can only draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Commission published a declaration in the Council minutes clarifying its position in that respect.

On the point of waste management, which Mrs Frahm, Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo and Mrs Doyle mentioned, it is important to note that the amended proposal clearly stipulates that for waste, destruction or irreversible transformation is a main rule, whereas other waste management operations can be allowed only in specific, clearly-defined cases. Especially in regard to the high-content POPs waste, the Commission points out that permanent storage or other operations can only be allowed if destruction of the POP content is not the environmentally-preferable option. This is fully in line with the provisions of the Stockholm Convention. Moreover, the modified provisions lay down additional conditions and a procedure to ensure that the derogation is not misused. On these grounds the Commission can accept the compromise.

I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, and Parliament for this very important piece of legislative work.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.