Mr President, even though the time is getting on, I am pleased that we are finally to debate this recommendation for second reading. It is in fact a regulation which really needs to be adopted and implemented, for the situation we are facing is quite serious. The depletion of the ozone layer is becoming more and more obvious. The Commission’s first document describes the depletion over Scandinavia, Greenland and Siberia as being a record. Unfortunately, we now probably have to say that this record has been beaten again. Last week, measurements were presented which showed that the situation has never been more serious than it is now. I would especially emphasise this for the benefit of those Members of the European Parliament who have had doubts about the value of hastening the phasing out of ozone-destroying substances. I would also emphasise this for the benefit of other people who say that it costs too much to achieve so little as a percentage or two reduction in the depletion of the ozone layer. That is not the case! The hole in the ozone layer is not an invention. Nor is the fact that it is getting larger! We therefore now have a unique opportunity with the adoption of this regulation and of the amendments to which the majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has said yes. These measures are not enough to “repair” the hole in the ozone layer, but they are a step in the right direction which it is necessary to take. We are aware of the causes of the problem, we are aware of the consequences and, in the vast majority of cases, we also have alternatives. In those cases where there are no alternatives, the regulation provides acceptable margins for industry to succeed in making the required transition. It is we who are to decide whether this is to become a reality. I would emphasise that this proposal is not an attempt to prevent alterations to on-going climate change. Arguments of this kind have been put forward but, as far as I am concerned, these are just attempts to cloud the issue. We need to solve both problems. A number of the substances which are nowadays used as replacements for the HCFC substances that the debate has come to revolve around have an effect upon the environment. So too, however, have the substances we use today, a fact of which we are well aware. There is therefore no reason for reintroducing the HCFC substances into processes in which they have been prohibited for the last five years. This is taken up in Article 5(3) in the Council’s common position, of which I am strongly critical. There is a ban in place, and relaxing this can hardly be in keeping with the objective of the regulation. I would therefore address the Commission and ask if they are really serious about this. Large parts of industry operating in this sphere have already adapted their production methods and found alternatives, and yet the European organisation for this branch of industry, EUROFEU, is quite unable to see the point of the change. I would ask the Commission why. What is behind this U-turn? I hope that, in its vote on Wednesday, the House will comply with the proposal of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection to remove this Article in its entirety. In this connection, I would also mention Amendment No 34 which has been introduced into the plenary sitting. As far as I am concerned, this proposal is just as unreasonable. The other matter I consider to be crucial to this regulation, if it is to be forward-looking, is the continued use of methyl bromide. We know that methyl bromide is one of the biggest villains where the ozone layer is concerned. It is also a very poisonous substance which affects those who work with it and which does not only exterminate unwanted noxious insects but also all organisms in the earth. It affects water, air and people. The time is ripe for a ban. Moreover, we have for a long time now had alternatives available in this sphere which are in many cases much more profitable than what we make use of today. I would therefore emphasise the importance of Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4 and 10 which reduce the opportunity for continued use of methyl bromide, except in certain extreme circumstances. I would also mention Amendment No 12 concerning quarantine arrangements in connection with shipments. The regulation does not provide for any clear phasing out of these. I would also direct the House’s and the Commission’s attention to Amendment No 9 which provides the opportunity to use chloroflourocarbons in certain extremely special cases, for example to offer pain relief to people who are seriously ill. I should also like the Commission to review the narrow time limits which are given in the regulation. The discussion of this matter has, however, been delayed. In this context, I would therefore put in a word for the small and medium-sized companies which have done their utmost to comply with the intentions of the regulation but which have nonetheless still not achieved their objective. A certain understanding of the situation in which they find themselves is to be desired. At the plenary sitting, further amendments were also tabled which have not been adopted or discussed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection; one of these I have already mentioned. These are Amendments Nos 30, 31, 32 and 34, which are scarcely in keeping with the regulation. I would put a question mark over Amendment No 32, which has clearly been mistranslated both in the Swedish version and in other versions. I would therefore move the rejection of these amendments. Amendment No 35 is covered by Amendment No 39 and is therefore superfluous. Otherwise, applause for all the amendments which the majority of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has adopted.

Political group: PSE