[ Navigation ]
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | index | top
MEPs yesterday approved a ban on non-electrical mercury thermometers and other mercury instruments for general sale to the public, thereby dropping their earlier call for an open-ended derogation for barometer manufacturers. They accepted a two-year exemption instead.
The directive prohibiting the sale on the EU market of these devices is part of a broad strategy on mercury, a metal which is highly toxic to humans, ecosystems and wildlife. This was the European Parliament's 2nd reading and the text now requires formal approval by the Council of Ministers.
The ban will apply to new fever thermometers for both professional and private use, and also to "other measuring devices intended for sale to the general public (e.g. manometers, barometers, sphygmomanometers, thermometers other than fever thermometers)".
Subject to Council of Ministers' approval, the Directive will be published in the EU's Official Journal later this year, leaving Member States 12 months to implement the rules in national legislation. Six months later the national rules should apply, with the exemption for barometers ending a further six months after that (probably in autumn 2009).
Next steps: Following this European Parliament 2nd reading, the Council of Ministers now has to give its formal approval and the Directive must be published in the EU Official Journal before it enters into force.
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | index | top
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | index | top
Excerpts from Monday's debate (9 July 2007) in Strasbourg
Martin Callanan (Conservative, North East): I have to say that I remain deeply convinced that both the Commission and the Council, and some Members of this Parliament, have got the argument completely wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for a ban on barometers. They are only being singled out because there is only a relatively small number of companies which still produce them in Europe and they are an easy target as far as the Commission is concerned, to make it look as though they are actually doing something about mercury, whereas the big sources of release of mercury – from power stations, crematoria, etc. – are not being tackled because, of course, to tackle them would be very expensive for Member State governments and local authorities.
It is a completely illogical position to say that antique instruments will be exempted but new instruments will be banned. There are probably more antique instruments being circulated and placed on the market in Europe than there are new instruments being created. It is a very small minority specialist market and Europe brings itself into disrepute by delegitimising, by banning, by forcing out of business, a small number of very entrepreneurial and gifted craftsmen.
Linda McAvan (Labour, Yorkshire & Humber): No sector has been singled out – not thermometers, nor barometers – because there is going to be a set of actions over a number of years…We have agreed under the REACH Directive that if there is a safe alternative to dangerous chemicals, we should move towards that alternative…So to say ‘let us make an exemption for barometers’ at this stage is totally inconsistent with the REACH Directive. What is more, the REACH Directive would cover barometers.
In the United States in May, somebody found a broken barometer in a storage cupboard in a school. The school was closed for a week. The whole school had to be evacuated and there was a clean-up bill amounting to thousands of dollars. Sixteen US States are moving towards mercury prohibitions on barometers and other equipment. In fact, they are going much further than the European Commission is proposing to go here today. So anybody who is talking about nanny-state Europe is totally misplaced when they are looking at the barometer issue.
The PSE Group pushed for the two-year phase-out for the barometer industry. We know these are small companies, we know it will pose some difficulties for them, but I think they were aware of the REACH Directive coming their way anyway, and I think this is a sensible compromise.
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | index | top
Debate of 9 July 2007 in the speakers' original language is available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20070709+ITEM-020+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
Text adopted by the European Parliament (10 July 2007) is available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2007-0319+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
Report on the proposal for a Directive on measuring devices containing mercury (A6-0218/2007) by María Sornosa Martínez MEP:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A6-2007-0218+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
Summary of procedure in the European Parliament's Legislative Observatory:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2006/0018
Other related legislation:
Electrical measuring devices containing mercury are already covered by existing EU legislation - the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0095:EN:NOT
UK MEPs contact details:
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | index | top
[ Navigation ]