Thank you to the Commission for their presentation of the recast on the restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. I agree with many of the issues raised.

The purpose of the RoHS directive is to protect human health and contribute to the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of electrical and electronic equipment. That means greening the industry itself. Electrical and electronic equipment are the fastest growing waste streams - 9 million tonnes per year and projected to rise to 12 million by 2020. This poses serious environmental problems as substances are released, often unintentionally, into the environment. Electronic waste is increasingly illegally exported to developing countries, creating severe problems. The current RoHS directive, which restricts the use of some heavy metals and brominated flame retardants, has been an important instrument in setting not just a European standard, but a global standard for manufacturers. It has not prevented the continued development of new products but the opposite - products were redesigned to be compliant with RoHS and many companies are going beyond that to phase out the use of bromine and chlorine based compounds.

So the recast is an opportunity to take this progress a step further and I will be proposing that the committee goes further than the Commission has ventured so far. I will highlight the main points on which my report will focus.

SCOPE

There is a lot of debate on which products the directive will cover. The argument for a binding list of products is better harmonisation and less confusion over what fell under the scope of RoHS. But the binding list cannot possibly cover the ongoing development of new products. And the list is not, in reality, a binding one because the list is not exhaustive - it states the categories under which products covered would "include" those on the list, therefore only an open scope solves the problem of different interpretations because everything is deemed to be covered unless it has secured an exclusion. I believe an open scope will improve the legal clarity of the directive that industry has been calling for and has widespread support in the Council. So I will be proposing an open scope, granting a transition time for all products not previously covered and with exclusions to be decided in co-decision.

NEW RESTRICTIONS

The RoHS directive resulted in lead and cadmium free products. Almost ten years on more substances needs to be restricted under RoHS, as was clearly forseen in the original directive - the review was to study the need to adapt the list (i.e. Annex IV) on the basis of scientific progress and present legislative proposals. The Oko Institut study commissioned by the Commission also recommends further restrictions. So my report will propose action along these lines by moving the substances currently in Annex III and selected for review to Annex IV and include other substances, to phase out the use of halogenated flame retardants and PVC.

There is a global initiative by industry to phase out brominated flame retardants, chlorinated flame retardants and PVC already, particularly in the mobile phone and computer industry. I will be seeking to provide a legal framework for this phase out.

Companies such as Apple and Sony Ericsson will be discussing their experience of going halogen free in a conference I am hosting with ChemSec on November 18th here in the Parliament. The conference will be discussing how the electronics industry is moving and can move from hazardous materials to sustainable solutions. Eco-labels like TCO Certified are already leading the way by awarding certification to products that do not contain halogen. Almost a hundred different brand owners all over the world are producing such products, proving that the changes I am intending for the RoHS recast are not just possible, but practical. But while I'm glad to see these voluntary initiatives, they are not enough. Voluntary initiatives mean that not all companies are doing the same. The white goods sector for example is currently standing still on this. Only legislation can ensure progress in all sectors under RoHS. To avoid misunderstandings, I suggest the new restrictions on halogenated substances will apply initially to c ertain categories of electronic equipment (essentially fast-moving consumer goods, not medical devices or monitoring and control equipment.

METHODOLOGY

Some I have met wish for electrical and electronic products to be covered by REACH only. I do not agree. The REACH legislation was intended to deal with the lack of data on chemicals. We rightly have many other sectoral legislations to deal with specific problems, such as the toy directive or the cosmetics directive. REACH cannot deal with waste issues, RoHS can. RoHS should be a complementary process to REACH to ensure the original aim of the directive - to restrict hazardous substances in electronic equipment. The Commission agrees that RoHS should keep its own jurisdiction

The logical consequence is that RoHS needs to develop its own criteria and methodology. The directive was adopted in co-decision and so the most important function of the directive - restrictions on new substances should also be adopted through co-decision and not left to comitology as the Commission proposes. I believe that Parliament should maintain its power of co-decision here, especially as the methodology is not even defined yet in the proposals from the Commission. We need to be involved in the fundamental process of deciding which and how new substances are restricted or phased out.

EXEMPTIONS

I will be seeking to maintain the current system in regards to granting exemptions, but with some changes. I absolutely support the Commission's decision to switch the burden of proof when granting exemptions from themselves to the industry. The applicant must reapply.

New criteria should be used when deciding on the duration of an exemption or a possible grace period. Insufficient availability of substitutes should not be a simple yes/no decision. Instead, the availability of substitutes should be used to decide on a grace period for a product after the expiry of its exemption. The reliability of a substitute is also unnecessary, as this is already covered by safety considerations in the directive. This modified process for exemptions would, I believe, encourage progress in developing alternatives in a shorter period of time.

But to answer one of industry's demands, I am looking into setting a Commission deadline of six months before the exemption expiry to provide a decision on the request for a renewal. This should give plenty of time for industry to prepare and will give certainty and clarity on timescales.

To sum up, the main issues I wish to tackle in this recast is to open the scope to include all electronic equipment. This will ensure legal clarity and will ensure that the many new products being developed every day will be automatically included in the ban, without the need for a comitology procedure.

I am firm that RoHS maintains its independence and that a methodology is included in this directive as part of the co-decision process, to ensure that the Parliament has a say in the most vital part of this directive.

I wish to maintain the current procedure of applying for exemptions but with the possibility to grant shorter grace periods for those products where an alternative is being developed. In response to concerns of industry, I will be inserting a firm deadline in the directive for the Commission to make its decision by.

The current RoHS directive is wholly understood and respected by the industry. My intention is to build on this and further advance the provisions to guarantee maximum protection for the environment and human health.

I look forward to a further exchange at the end of this month, when you will have all read and commented on my draft report. Can I also remind you that we can continue the debate in the conference I am hosting on November 18th. For more details and information, feel free to contact my office.

Diwedd/Ends.