Mr President, PVC has unique qualities as a plastic, of course. It is strong and hard-wearing, which makes it suitable for use in a number of areas. However, PVC also has other qualities, being the source of unusually hazardous waste. Chlorine is one of its main components. Lead and cadmium are used as stabilisers, and phthalates are added to make the material more supple. This creates very major environmental problems when it comes to disposing of it. We find it an encouraging sign that we have been given a Green Paper in this area, but we hope that this will soon be followed up by a more comprehensive legislative initiative. I believe that the Sacconi report can make very valuable contributions to such an initiative on the part of the Commission. We are convinced that voluntary agreements are not enough and that genuine legislation is required instead. What ought to be done, then? Well, first of all, there must be a reduction in total use, at the same time as substitute materials are promoted. That is the only way of reducing the quantity of waste. Secondly, a system must be introduced whereby manufacturers are made responsible for recycling and bear the costs of this. Hazardous stabilisers in the form of heavy metals such as lead and cadmium must be banned as soon as possible. It is important for this to be combined with an import ban, so that the measure is comprehensive in scope. The issue of voluntary agreements arises in this connection. A voluntary agreement cannot, of course, involve a ban on imports. The fact is that an import ban and legislation in this area would benefit the most modern industries in that they would obtain protection for their more environmentally friendly products. Legislation would be more effective and more environmentally friendly than a voluntary agreement. We want the use of phthalates to be monitored and preferably reduced. That applies particularly to their use in certain types of medical equipment. We also want to see more done to promote recycling. That means an efficient labelling system, however, and it has to be realised that much of the recycling done at present is a failure. Overall, we are very satisfied with Mr Sacconi’s report. We have therefore tabled only a few amendments. We think it only reasonable to specify a year after which cadmium is no longer to be used, just as has been done in the case of lead. As I said before, the reason for this is that if there is no legislation and if the latter is not combined with an import ban, there is a risk of the measure’s not being effective enough. It would therefore be consistent to specify a deadline for cadmium, just as the report does in the case of lead. I have also joined with the Group of the in drafting an amendment dealing with the substitution principle whereby chemicals are to be replaced by less hazardous substances. I believe it is important to incorporate this as one of the basic principles of the whole of the European Union’s policy on chemicals. That is why it is appropriate to mention the substitution principle in this context too. I should like to thank the rapporteur for a good piece of work and for having cooperated so well with other groups.

Political group: GUE-NGL