Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-13-Speech-2-352"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011113.13.2-352"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank the European Parliament for the report on the Commission’s White Paper on a future chemicals policy. I really do hope that it will be adopted tomorrow. It is incredibly important that we should take this step towards a new, better and more effective chemicals policy. I want to say a special thank-you to Mrs Schörling, who has put a great deal of work into her role as rapporteur. I also want to thank all those who have taken part in the debate, because it has been an important discussion in which important points of view have emerged.
I note that, in its draft report, Parliament proposes that several categories of substance be added to the authorisation procedure. I can appreciate its wanting to do that, but I believe that, as matters stand, it would be inappropriate to accord the system too much scope. We must be pragmatic to start with, so that we do not relapse into having an unmanageable system. If we overload the system, a large number of resources will be employed in managing a very small portion of all those substances that need to be investigated. We have limited resources, and we must establish priorities and decide how we are to use our resources in the most effective ways.
Parliament’s draft report also says that the proposed EU system must cover chemicals produced in quantities of less than one tonne in the form of substances or preparations that occur in products. On the part of the Commission, I want most definitely to recommend a limit of one tonne so that it is possible to use the resources of the industry and of the authorities in the most effective way possible. If we want to get the proposal through, we must concentrate on what is most hazardous. There is no doubt a misunderstanding here. This limit does not apply to the most hazardous substances which, in each and every case, must go through the authorisation procedure. The very fact that the limit is set at one tonne does not mean that chemicals produced in smaller quantities escape monitoring. The industry is still obliged to carry out a risk assessment of the chemicals and to provide safety information to users in the form of marking and Safety Data Sheets. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that these provisions are complied with. The industry must be able, upon request, to supply information to the authorities.
The Commission has now set up a number of technical working parties with experts from the Member States, industry, non-governmental organisations and the Commission. The result of their deliberations is expected in February 2002, and it will constitute one of the most important contributions to the draft legislation on the part of the Commission.
It is difficult to prophesy when the Commission will be able to table its proposals. If everything goes smoothly, I believe that we can aim for April or May 2002, but the objective is, no matter what, to submit the proposals to Parliament and the Council before the summer of 2002.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the debate which I know is taking place and which is perhaps being conducted most eagerly in Germany and the United Kingdom. What matters is that the European chemicals industry should remain competitive, but we are doing nothing that is not also being done in the United States, Canada and Japan within the framework of the OECD. Roughly the same measures are also being taken by our competitor countries and in the world around us, where precisely the same problems are being experienced as in Europe. If the desire is for the European chemicals industry to hold its own, sustainable development must be worked for. It must be possible to guarantee that what is produced is safe for use in terms of human health and the environment and that it corresponds to the requirements of consumers.
We have tabled a balanced proposal which takes account of the needs of industry but which also states that what is most important is to bring about a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I think the best answer that can be given is to say that there is no need to be anxious. This proposal will lead to innovation in the chemicals sphere. We can defend our European chemicals industry through the safe use of chemicals in the future.
The White Paper presents the Commission’s proposal for a new chemicals strategy. The modes of procedure presented in the White Paper are well balanced, and I believe they involve a step forwards in the direction of sustainable development. The debate in this House has perhaps shown that we have succeeded reasonably well in finding a balance between different views, even though there is scope for improvements.
The background is as follows. Chemical production has increased almost explosively, from 1 million tonnes in 1930 to 400 million tonnes per year today. We wish to maintain a high level of protection for the environment and human health, but we also need to try to make use of the advantages presented by chemicals. We all know that there are chemicals in practically all the products we encounter every day. It would be unrealistic to believe that, with a wave of the hand, we could get rid of all chemicals or that there could be a chemical-free modern society. However, we must balance these requirements. Anyone who examined what is now the European Union’s 20 year-old system of supervision would see clearly that it is not effective enough by a long chalk. I would maintain that the system makes, for example, an artificial or arbitrary distinction between old and new chemicals.
Chemicals have many extremely important advantages for society. Thanks to medicines and pharmaceutical products, it is possible to combat illnesses and suffering. It is probably the case that a majority of the products forming part of our modern life-style today are manufactured from plastic or contain chemicals of some kind. The chemicals industry is one of Europe’s largest manufacturing industries, employing 1.7 million people. Between three and four million jobs depend upon it. Ninety-six per cent of all companies are small and medium-sized, and they account for approximately 23 per cent of chemicals production.
We are all of us exposed to chemicals on a daily basis. We have tried to look into whether this situation can be described in figures. Calculated, for example, in tonnes, each and every one of us probably comes into contact with several tonnes of chemicals in our daily life. That should also mean that we are exposed to several tens of thousands of chemicals. More and more reports are coming in concerning health problems, allergies and asthma assumed to be connected with chemicals. As has already been mentioned, research results show that the human body can contain at least 350 synthetic chemicals which, in the natural course of things, ought not to be there. There are persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals, and these are now to be found in placentas, foetuses and new-born children, to which they are transferred. These chemicals are the first things a child ingests. Chemicals are found in the depths of the sea and in the Arctic, where they have never once been used. Hormone-changing substances can affect our reproduction and our nervous systems. That is a fact.
The procedures governing the present EU legislation have been rightly criticised for being too slow and unwieldy. Even though we have made some progress within the EU when it comes to evaluating the risks and restricting and controlling the use of hazardous chemicals, there is still an incredible amount to do. At present, it is the authorities who have to demonstrate that a chemical is unsafe. That obviously has to change. As in the case of all other products, responsibility for ensuring that products released onto the market are safe must lie with producers, manufacturers and users at later stages in the manufacturing chain. That, basically, is what EU legislation will amount to. Can you think of any other product about whose content we do not even have basic information or for which responsibility is entirely assumed by the authorities? That is a basic error in the system. What we now have to do is find a suitable balance between, on the one hand, the chemicals’ advantages and, on the other hand, the unacceptable risks they involve for human health and the environment. At the same time, we naturally want to ensure that the internal market is able to function and that the European chemicals industry, which is the world’s largest, can maintain its competitiveness. In order better to be able to assess the consequences of different ways of implementing the proposals in the White Paper, we have set up an inquiry which will look more closely into the costs.
The Commission proposes that a ‘REACH system’ be set up to cover both existing substances, many of which have been on the market for at least 20 years but have never been properly tested, and new substances released onto the market after 1981. The industry must be given incentives to gather data and, if need be, test the substances, preferably without using animal experiments. We must help one another ensure that animal experiments are restricted. An integrated policy is needed in order to do this. None of us, I trust, would happily see full-scale experiments carried out on living human beings, animals or the countryside involving chemicals whose contents we do not know enough about. There is, in actual fact, no denying that that is what happens at present, because we do not know enough about the chemicals that are released. Pragmatic decisions are required in this area, together with a sensible application of the precautionary principle to chemicals policy. If there are reasons for suspecting that a substance has damaging effects on health or the environment and if our scientific and technical knowledge is not sufficient to provide a clear appreciation of the risks, we must take no chances and restrict or prohibit the use of the substance until such time as we know more.
The absolute top priority is to fill the gaps in our knowledge of the risks involved in the 30 000 ‘existing substances’ that are produced or imported in quantities greater than that of one tonne per manufacturer per year.
The proposed new system includes a special arrangement for substances that give cause for special concern, or what are known as CMR substances. These are substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproduction. They must be authorised before they are allowed to be used, and companies must show that they can be used safely on condition that risk management measures are taken. It should then be possible to authorise such safe use with reference to the cost and income analyses supplied by the companies. In this way, the burden of proof will be redistributed, and the risk assessment will be focused on those areas of use for which the companies have sought authorisation. In this way, approximately 1 500 substances, that is to say 5 per cent of all substances, will be covered by this authorisation procedure. The system will promote innovation, and that will lead to the most hazardous substances being replaced."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples